Mundi Club II

North Korea and America’s Jewish Foreign Policies.

2006-10-11T13:20:00.000-07:00

After north korea joined the world’s nuclear club on october 09, 2006, it has become apparent that Kim Jong-Il’s decision to go nuclear derived primarily from the bush administration’s judaeo-centric foreign policies.

Firstly, in america, the jewish lobby, the jewish dominated media, and the jews in the bush administration, have forced bush into focusing almost exclusively on the middle east to the virtual exclusion of all other foreign policy issues. Even though the nuclear threat posed by north korea was much more urgent than the nuclear threats posed by iraq or iran, the jews in the bush administration went out of their way to discourage bush from placing north korea at the top of the global political agenda because this would have distracted him from promoting the interests of the jews only state in palestine (jos) in the middle east which were overwhelmingly concerned with iraq and iran rather than korea. The bush administration did very little to deter north korea from going nuclear in comparison to the huge amount of time and effort it devoted to the alleged nuclear threats posed by iraq and iran. America’s disinterestedness in north korea in comparison to its invasion of iraq and its continual propaganda war against iran is bizarre given any objective assessments of the threats posed by these countries.

Secondly, in america, the jewish lobby, the jewish dominated media, and the jews in the bush administration all support a highly belligerent foreign policy in which negotiations are dismissed in favour of pre-emptive military strikes. The jewish neocons’ belligerence has infected the bush administration to such a degree that bush now prefers to threaten countries with pre-emptive military attacks rather than seeking negotiations to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Bush’s belligerent attitudes towards foreign policies are an exact replica of those promoted by the jos. Bush’s judeo-centric hostility toward north korea is solely responsible for pushing the country into developing nuclear weapons to defend itself from an american military attack.

America’s Disinterestedness and Bellicosity towards Korea.
A number of commentators have pointed out these two attitudes, disinterestedness and belligerence, in bush’s foreign policies without ascribing their origins to america’s jewish ruling elite.

Ron Jacobs.
"Besides the very real threat of some kind of military action that could escalate into a full-scale war, the other distressing aspect of this entire scenario is that it could most likely have been prevented. If Washington had agreed to sit down with Pyongyang and hold head-to-head talks that included the signing of a peace treaty between the two nations, the world would not find itself in today's situation. Yet, for some reason known only to a relative few, Washington has refused to sign such a treaty (or even hold head-to-head talks), even though military hostilities ended over fifty years ago." (Ron Jacobs ‘North Korea's Big Bang’ http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs10092006.html October 9, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"The Clinton administration tried to engage Pyongyang, with notable lack of success, and the Bush administration has spent years ignoring the problem, convinced that if we talk to our enemies we'll have given them a "carrot" they can chew on to their heart's content without granting any concessions in return." (Justin Raimondo ‘North Korea's Nukes: Why Now?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9836 October 11, 2006).

Mike Whitney.
"The crisis with North Korea was entirely avoidable for anyone with even minimal diplomatic skills and an elementary understanding of human psychology. Instead, the Bush troupe persisted for 6 years with the same inflexible policy nudging Kim ever-closer to producing his first nuclear weapon. Now, half the population of the United States is in the gun-sights of a madcap tyrant whose basic grasp of reality has always been seriously in doubt. The Bush administration has known what Kim wants for 6 years and has had ample opportunity to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff. North Korea's demands go back to the original 1994 "Framework Agreement" in which Bill Clinton promised to provide food, fuel and 2 light-water reactors in exchange for North Korea's abandoning its nuclear weapons programs. The North agreed to these terms, but the United States has never honored its obligations." (Mike Whitney ‘Bumbling Toward Disaster: Bush and North Korea’ http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney10102006.html October 10, 2006).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"The chances are North Korea will become more of a "reference" by Iran in the near future, in part to highlight the rather egregious double standards of the international community in turning a blind eye to proliferation in one case and vehement objection to the (allegations of) proliferation in another. This is not even to mention the proposed US-India nuclear-sharing agreement, which flies in the face of the United States' own non-proliferation commitments." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘North Korea eases the heat on Iran - for now’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ11Ak01.html Oct 11, 2006).

John Feffer.
"Five years ago, when US President George W Bush took office, North Korea didn't claim membership in the nuclear club. Its plutonium-reprocessing facilities were frozen. It was even willing to negotiate away its missile program. Instead of pursuing the diplomatic route, the Bush administration tried to ignore Pyongyang. Then came the schoolyard taunts such as lumping North Korea together with Iraq and Iran in an "axis of evil". When indifference and insult failed to move the isolated Northeast Asian country, the administration accused North Korea of enriching uranium, which led to the unraveling of the 1994 Agreed Framework and the reigniting of a major crisis. To top it off, Washington began to squeeze Pyongyang economically with sanctions." (John Feffer ‘When the stick waves, the hornet stings’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ12Dg02.html October 12, 2006).

Yet again Bush’s Jewish Policies are Endangering America.
America is now suffering the consequences of pursuing foreign policies designed to protect the interests of the jos rather than its own strategic interests because it is endangered by korea’s nuclear weapons. "He (Kim Jong-Il) will soon be able to launch missiles with nuclear warheads onto U.S. forces on the DMZ and Okinawa. Given time and the testing of his long-range rockets, North Korea will one day be able to bombard the American mainland with atom bombs." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘An Asian Nuclear Arms Race?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9835%20 October 11, 2006). Bush’s failure to dissuade north korea from developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental weapons which now pose a threat to america is yet another foreign policy disaster for america. "How could Bush let the situation get so out-of-hand? After all, the central tenet of the war on terror is: "We will not let the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the hands of the world's worst dictators"? Instead, they have elevated an unstable megalomaniac into a nuclear-armed menace. It could turn out to be the greatest foreign policy meltdown in American history." (Mike Whitney ‘Bumbling Toward Disaster: Bush and North Korea’ http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney10102006.html October 10, 2006).

Just as america’s ruling jewish elite pushed bush into an invasion of iraq which has turned into an economic and military catastrophe for america, so bush’s jewish foreign policies have ended up endangering america. Jews in america have foisted their paranoid, megalomaniacal, warmongering onto the bush administration but all this has achieved has been to push america towards yet another catastrophe.

The Conundrum of America’s Foreign policies.
It has been obvious ever since bush announced in his 2002 state of the union address highlighting an axis of evil consisting of north korea, iraq, and iran, that korea had a far greater capability for developing nuclear weapons than either iraq or iran. If this was the case why did the bush administration spend so much time push iraq and then iran to the top of the global political agenda whilst refusing to do anything whatsoever about korea? One commentator outlines the conundrum without providing any answers. "The faintest whiff of weapons of mass destruction had justified US military intervention in Iraq. And all the United States could do with North Korea was call it names?" (John Feffer ‘When the stick waves, the hornet stings’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ12Dg02.html October 12, 2006). Why has the bush administration neglected the biggest nuclear weapons threat to america whilst ignoring the non-existent nuclear threats from iraq and iran? The only answer to this is that america’s foreign policies are determined by america’s jewish elite which is far more concerned with the military threats that iran and iraq pose to the jos than they are with any military threats to america. America’s jewish traitors don’t care what happens to america. They are concerned only with the safety and military colonialism of the jos. Until these traitors are forced out of the bush administration they will push america towards even greater catastrophes.

Bombing Iran.

2006-09-26T15:04:00.000-07:00

How depressing. Four of the six main commentaries in the september 26th edition of antiwar.com suggest there’ll soon be a war against iran.

Four reasons are given why it is more likely that bush will bomb iran rather than not do so.

Paul craig roberts believes the use of nuclear weapons against iran will make it impossible for iran to retaliate. "The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Why Bush Will Nuke Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9749 September 26, 2006). Is it not possible the mere threat of nukes might succeed?

According to roberts, the rabbi in the white house believes a war against iran is winnable and that giving iran a good nuking will force the rest of the moslem world in the middle east into submission. "Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Why Bush Will Nuke Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9749 September 26, 2006). Whilst the use of nukes against iran would make that war winnable, it is far from certain the rest of the moslem world would be intimidated. On the contrary, the outrage could bring down the egyptian, saudi, jordanian, and pakistani, governments. America would then only be able to recover its position throughout the entire middle east if it was prepared to invade all middle eastern countries and impose direct control over 650 million people or just nuke them. If outraged moslems overthrew the pakistani government they might be tempted to retaliate against the jews by using their nuclear weapons.

Secondly, bush’s increasingly disastrous occupations of afghanistan and iraq, and the jews’ disastrous attack on lebanese civilians, have boosted the political power and military prowess of iran in the middle east. The only way to prevent iran from enjoying the fruits of american labour is if the americans decimate the country as much as they have devastated iraq and as much as the jews have devastated palestine and lebanon.

According to patrick buchanan, at present the legacy which bush will leave behind him is one of failure so bush has got to attack iran to avoid such a dismal legacy. "Another school argues thus: If Tehran survives the Bush era without dismantling its nuclear program, Bush will be a failed president. He declared in his 2002 State of the Union Address that no axis-of-evil nation would be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Iran and North Korea will have both defied the Bush Doctrine. His legacy would then be one of impotency in Iran and North Korea, and two failed wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – which will be in their sixth and eighth years. Those who know him best say that George Bush is not a man to leave office with such a legacy. He will go to war first, even if no one goes along." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Consult America – Before the Next War’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9748 September 26, 2006).

Incidentally, buchanan’s recommendation for preventing bush from declaring war against iran is that the american knesset must insist that only it has the constitutional right to declare war. "Today, President Bush does not have the constitutional authority to launch preemptive war. Congress should remind him of that, and demand that he come to them to make the case and get a declaration of war, before he undertakes yet another war – on Iran." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Consult America – Before the Next War’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9748 September 26, 2006). But this is bizarre. There’s only one policy the rabbis in the american knesset support and that’s nuking iran!

Dave lindorff suggests that bush believes he has the constitutional right to attack iran as part of The War Against Terrorism. "Bush claims, with the backing of his mob attorney, Alberto Gonzales, the head of what used to be known of quaintly as the Justice Department, that when Congress, in the wake of the 9-11 attacks in 2001, voted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda -a measure that was meant to give the go-ahead for an attack on Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan -it was also giving him the power to act as Commander-in-Chief in a war on terror that would have no end and that would extend anywhere and everywhere in the world and within the borders of the U.S." (Dave Lindorff ‘Going to War to Save His Own Ass?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09262006.html September 26, 2006).

Lindorff, who bets "we'll be at war with Iran before Election Day" dismisses the idea that the american knesset would approve of such a war. "Nor would he likely be given the go-ahead by Congress this time around, with all of the House and a third of the Senate facing re-election on November 7 by an electorate that has grown weary of war, angry at a half trillion dollars wasted, and sick about the thousands of flag-draped coffins and broken GIs returning home, with nothing to show for it all but two dysfunctional, war-torn former countries in the Middle East." (Dave Lindorff ‘Going to War to Save His Own Ass?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09262006.html September 26, 2006).

Lindorf believes that bush will attack iran to prevent democrats from prosecuting him as a war criminal. "Why would Bush be willing to do such a thing, against the advice of his generals, against the wishes of the American people, and against all logic and decency? Clearly he is afraid -afraid that a Democratic Congress will finally start calling him to account for his accumulated crimes against the nation and the American People. That's why he is desperately trying to get the Republican-led Congress -while it still can -to pass legislation retroactively exonerating him and his subordinates for their criminal violations of law and Constitution. That's why he is racing around the country raising money for candidates -even including liberal Republicans whose positions he privately abhors. At this point, all this president cares about is saving his own sorry ass." (Dave Lindorff ‘Going to War to Save His Own Ass?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09262006.html September 26, 2006). Lindorff seems to be living in a non-jewish dream world. He believes the rabbis in the democratic party would prefer to impeach bush rather than implement the jews’ policy of bombing iran. But, how is it going to be possible for the democratic rabbis to impeach the president for committing war crimes they have supported? It’s not enough to charge bush for war crimes. He also ought to be charged with impersonating a jewish fundamentalist. Perhaps if he pleads insanity for his wasp-jewish schizophrenia then perhaps he’d get a reduced sentence but few objective observers would be taken in by his protestations that he’s still a wasp.

Bush has generated catastrophes in the middle east and he believes these can be remedied only by a successful war against iran. However, such a war is unlikely to be successful. It will bring about an even greater political and military catastrophe for america – although it is possible the jos could end up, if it is extremely lucky, sitting pretty amidst the rubble of its enemies in the middle east.

America Implementing Jewish Foreign Policies

2006-09-11T15:55:00.000-07:00

Updated October 06, 2006

Jewish Power over America’s Foreign Policies in the Middle East.
Since the end of the second world war the Jewish lobby in America has had an increasing influence over American policies in the Middle East. It has bribed, blackmailed, manipulated, or pressured, a succession of American presidents into implementing policies in the Middle East that support the Jews-only state in Palestine (Jos) even though they have run counter to America’s national interests.

In 1948 the Jewish lobby persuaded the Truman administration to support the foundation of the Jos against the advice of many of Truman’s advisors and the opposition of all Moslem, oil-owning, states. Implanting a western colonial, and racist, state in the middle of the Arab/Moslem world has caused a succession of wars and continual strife which have done nothing to boost America’s credibility or interests in the region.

In 1973 America, and the rest of the world, suffered a major economic recession resulting from an Arab oil boycott in retaliation for America’s military support for the Jos.

In the mid 1990s, the Jewish lobby succeeded in persuading president Clinton to ban America’s gigantic, multi-national, oil corporations from investing in Iran. Over the last decade, this has meant they have lost out on tens of billions of dollars of profits which would also have given a considerable boost to the American economy. Even Dick Cheney protested against the ban. "Go back to March 1996. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which was eagerly seeking to win energy business in Iran. The Clinton Administration had imposed sanctions on Iran a year earlier. "I think," said Cheney, "we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to . . . get everybody else to live the way we would like." Two years later, in a speech at the Cato Institute, Cheney was even more scathing toward American sanctions on Iran." (Ken Silverstein ‘Dick Cheney, Dove’ http://harpers.org/sb-cheney-3020932092.html May 17, 2006). Martin Indyk, a member of the Clinton administration, has pointed out another disadvantage of the bill. "Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President Clinton as "counterproductive." He said it had split America from its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." (Ira Stoll ‘‘Israel Lobby' Caused War i n Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says’ http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=40629 September 29, 2006).

In 2003, the Jewish lobby, the jewish dominated media in america, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration, manipulated America into an invasion of Iraq even though Iraq was a military threat only to the Jos not to America or American interests in the region.

For the last few years, the Jos has been providing political and military assistance to Kurds supporting the formation of a greater Kurdistan even though such a new state runs counter to America’s geostrategic alliances with Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.

After the Jos’s barbaric attacks on Lebanese civilians American politicians are currently acting as the Jews’ proxy in Lebanon trying to achieve through the United Nations’ international force what the Jos could not achieve militarily. ""We have been driven into something we didn't want to do," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington in an interview with the New York Times. "Far from Israel being the American proxy in a war against Iran, we've become Israel's proxy in its war against Hizballah," he said. "Israel's miscalculations have been so serious that its only hope for victory is to have the United States and the international community do for Israel what it can't do militarily, which is defeat Hizballah, assemble an international force in Lebanon and bring some sort of endgame to all this." And like in the case of any other client state, Washington should ensure that the Israeli tail doesn't wag the American dog by drawing it into unnecessary and costly ventures, like the current crisis in Lebanon." (Leon Hadar ‘Neocons Amid Lebanon’s Rubble: A Challenge to Krauthammer's Israel-as-Strategic-Asset Argument’ http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12062 September 14, 2006).

As a consequence of its slavish devotion to the Jos’s serial, and illegal, pre-emptive wars, America has become increasingly reviled around the world.

Jewish Power over America’s Global Foreign Policies.
The Jewish lobby in America does not have merely a "stranglehold" (John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt) over American policies in the Middle east. It also influences America’s policies towards India and Russia, and thus, by default, China and South America.

In the mid 1990s the Jos formed a nuclear research pact with India to boost their development of nuclear weapons. The Jos and India had a common interest in countering Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons – what the Jos refers to as the ‘Islamic bomb’. However, America’s geostrategic interests were served by a nuclear balance between India and Pakistan to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear war between them. And yet this year Bush signed a nuclear agreement which will eventually provide India with nuclear superiority over Pakistan and thus seriously undermine this balance of nuclear terror. The Bush administration has also done its best to sabotage a pipeline agreement between Iran, Pakistan, and India, that would have helped consolidate good relations between the latter two countries. What is so striking about this change of policy is that since the Pentagon and New York bombings, America should have been tilting dramatically towards support for Pakistan since it has depended critically on Musharraf for help in invading Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban, and in curbing Al Quaeda.

The reason given by the Bush administration for this major change in America’s policy is that, geostrategically, it needs India to help counter-balance the emergence of China as a global superpower. But, this change of policy makes sense only if China poses a threat to America – which it does not. On the contrary, there is a considerable interdependence between the two economic super-powers. "After two years of consultations with more than 400 members of the US foreign-policy elite, a project headed by two leading international-relations academics is calling for the adoption of a new grand strategy designed to address multiple threats and strengthen Washington's commitment to a reformed and reinvigorated multilateral order. In a wide-ranging report released in Washington on Wednesday, the Princeton Project on National Security suggested that the policies pursued by President George W Bush since September 11, 2001, had been simplistic - even counter-productive - for the challenges facing the United States in the 21st century. On more specific issues, it calls for Washington to "take the lead in doing everything possible" to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict; to offer Iran security assurances in exchange for its agreement not to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity; and to neither "block or contain" China, but rather to "help it achieve its legitimate ambitions within the current international order"." (Jim Lobe ‘An alternative way forward for the US’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI29Aa01.html September 29, 2006).

What is really going on here is that the Jewish lobby has succeeded in tricking the Bush administration into discarding America’s geostrategic interests on the Indian sub-continent for the sake of promoting the Jos’s regional interests. It has camouflaged the real purpose of this change of policy by pretending the new policy will counter China’s (non-existent) threat to America. But, as a consequence of the Bush administration’s failure to reward Pakistan for the huge political and military sacrifices it has made for America, it has recently started adopting policies which are far from America- friendly. "With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI08Df03.html September 8, 2006); "Pakistan's credibility as a leading ally in the war on terrorism was called into question last night when it emerged that President Pervez Musharraf's government had authorised the release from jail of thousands of Taliban fighters caught fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan." (Isambard Wilkinson ‘US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/15/wpak15.xml September 15, 2006). The paradox of the Jewish lobby’s success in shifting this American policy is that it has undermined American interests. It not helped America to isolate China at all because Musharraf has decided that if America is going to boost India’s nuclear arsenal then he’ll have to develop a much closer relationship with China to help restore the nuclear balance of terror with India.

The Jewish lobby is so incensed about Pakistan’s recent changes in policy it has started lobbying for an American attack on Pakistan – as if America wasn’t having enough trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Washington and NATO must give top priority to three policy objectives, said Rubin (Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University): "Eliminating the Pakistani sanctuary [for the Taliban and al-Qaeda]; dramatically increasing international economic assistance; and pressing Karzai to take a much tougher stand against corrupt and abusive elements in his government." To achieve "strategic victory" over the Taliban, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two weeks ago, the Western powers must above all exert much stronger pressure on Pakistan, including suspending all military and economic aid, until it moved to disrupt and dismantle the Taliban's Pakistan-based command structures, which he called a "major threat to international peace and security". "Contrary to the analysis of the Bush administration, whose response to September 11 [2001] wandered off to Iraq and dreams of a 'New Middle East'," Rubin noted, "the main center of global terrorism is in Pakistan, especially the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. In the words of one military commander [he interviewed on a recent trip to Afghanistan], 'Until we transform the tribal belt, the US is at risk.'"" (Jim Lobe ‘'War on terror' returning to its cradle’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ05Df02.html October 05, 2006).

As regards Russia: America’s belligerent attitudes towards Putin are almost entirely funded by exiled Jewish oligarchs seeking to restore their former dominance over the Russian economy and political system. They have financed anti-Putin propaganda campaigns by America’s Jewish dominated media, Jewish run think tanks, the Jewish lobby, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration.

One of the unintended consequences of America’s almost total preoccupation with boosting the regional supremacy of the Jos, is its failure to devote sufficient political efforts to discouraging a number of South American countries from adopting policies challenging American corporate interests on the continent. The most blatant example of which is Chavez’s Venezeula. The following quote seems to suggest that American politicians have been in hibernation over this issue. "The US military’s top general warned on Friday that forces unfriendly to the United States are brewing in the Americas, arguing that "together we need to do something about it." General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, singled out Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez who this week attacked President George W. Bush as the "devil" in a speech to the UN General Assembly. "There have been increases in government actions that are not friendly to us," Pace said in a question-and-answer session with Pentagon employees. "President Chavez is clearly not a friend to the United States." (Unfriendly forces brewing in Latin America: US’ http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=25408 September 23, 2006). Noam Chomsky does not disagree, "Washington is now compelled to tolerate governments (in South America) that in the past would have drawn intervention or reprisal. Of course this shift is highly unwelcome in Washington, for the traditional reasons: The United States expects to rely on Latin America as a secure base for resources, markets and investment opportunities. And as planners have long emphasized, if this hemisphere is out of control, how can the United States hope to resist defiance elsewhere?" (Noam Chomsky ‘Latin America declares independence’ http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/03/opinion/edchomsky.php October 3, 2006).

America’s preoccupation with the Middle East is solely due to the influence of the Jewish lobby, the Jewish dominated media and the Jewish dominated congress. Geostrategically America’s focus on the Middle East and its disinterestedness in South America is bizarre considering that America gets more of its oil from the latter than the former. "The United States imports about 62 percent of its oil and other petroleum products. Only about 11 percent of domestic usage comes from the Persian Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia, for example, supplies about 7.2 percent of domestic usage. Our main imports by far come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. From January to July 2004, Saudi Arabia was fourth, just ahead of Nigeria and behind Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Iraq was sixth. These figures are from the American Petroleum Institute. We are bogged down in the Middle East because of Israel, not oil. Iraq was perceived as a threat to Israel, not to Saudi Arabia and certainly not to us. A man who at one time prepared the president's daily intelligence briefing told me years ago that there was never any indication whatsoever that Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia. We just used that as an excuse for the first Gulf War." (Charley Reese ‘Not What You Think’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7338.htm November 20th 2004). The freedom currently being enjoyed by many South American democrats has been paid for in the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs/Moslems slaughtered by Jews and Americans in the Middle East.

The Jewish lobby in America, with the formidable help of the Jewish dominated American media, the Jewish fostered and financed Christian-Zionist movement, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration, has a critical influence on virtually all of America’s foreign policies not just those in the Middle East. It is pushing America into pursuing policies around the world which boost the regional interests of the Jos but undermine America’s geostrategic interests.

The Differences between American Interests and those of the Jos.
The Jos has never been America’s strategic asset in the Middle East. On the contrary, it has been an ever increasing strategic catastrophe. America’s intervention in the October 1973 war on behalf of the Jos triggered a global, decade-long, economic recession. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan is turning into a military and financial disaster. In 2003, the Jewish lobby and neocons fabricated evidence to push America into an invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam not because the country posed a military threat to America but because it was a military threat to the Jos. This invasion has also turned out to be an even greater political and military catastrophe for America than its invasion of Afghanistan. "The war in Iraq has turned into a strategic catastrophe, with another disaster looming in Afghanistan. Anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim worlds is at record levels." (Patrick Seale ‘Pressures mount on Bush to bomb Iran’ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=75489 September 16, 2006).

The Jewish lobby in America is currently demanding that America launches a war against Iran. It is the main instigator of this war which will boost the regional supremacy of the Jos but will be an even bigger political and military catastrophe for America than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Increasing numbers of commentators have reached similar conclusions. "Have the neoconservatives learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon? Yes, I fear that it could be so. If we go down that road, (attacking Iran) gasoline is going to cost more than Chanel perfume by the gallon, the entire Middle East will go up in flames and the conflagration will wipe out our moderate Arab friends. We will end up in even deeper kimchi than we are already in." (Joseph L. Galloway ‘Who's Really Morally and Intellectually Challenged?’ http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0902-23.htm September 04, 2006); "By incessant strategic blunders, the US has isolated itself internationally and fanned the fires of global anti-Americanism, which increasingly engulf the very regions where its own resources-based strategic interests lie." (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HH25Dj01.html Aug 25, 2006); "For sacrificing untold numbers of American lives at the service of a foreign power, the Lobby and its political supporters in the US Congress will go down in history as traitors to our highest ideals as a free and independent country." (James Petras ‘Israeli-US Strategy: Lebanon and Iran’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14862.htm September 06, 2006).

The Rogue Jos.
America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Jews’ invasion of Lebanon, have turned out to be economic and military disasters for the invaders – not forgetting the victims of these illegal invasions. But this could be just a prelude. A Jewish inspired American attack on Iran will be a civilizational disaster. The Jewish lobby, the Jewish dominated media, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration, lied about Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons. This same group of liars is pretending that Iran poses a nuclear threat to the United States. That this lie has become accepted by politicians in America, and the rest of the Western world, is indicative of global Jewish power. That the Jos, and the Jewish lobbies in each country in the Western world, worked together to push Iraq, and more recently Iran, to the top of the global political agenda, when there are far more urgent global issues needing attention, is indicative of their grip over global politics.

The Jos is a kleptomaniac state which has stolen land from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. The Jewish lobby in America is the Jos’s political agent in America. It is an agent of a foreign power no different from communist parties in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. It politically perverted America’s war against Al Quaeda terrorism into a global war against the enemies of the Jos i.e. all those seeking to free themselves from Jewish colonialism. "Rather than take care of business in Afghanistan after 9/11, Bush and clueless U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed bin Laden to slip out of the Tora Bora caves to plan more attacks and the Taliban to regroup. Instead, Bush and Co. threw the bulk of our military and aid resources into a disastrous attempt to remake oil-rich Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, into an American puppet state." (Robert Scheer ‘Afghanistan: High on Opium, Not Democracy’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060905_robert_scheer_afghanistan_opium/ Sep 5, 2006).

The Jos is trying to pretend it is a western, multi-cultural, secular, democratic society when in reality it is kleptomaniac, terrorist, militaristic, fundamentalist, apartheid, state. The Jewish lobby in America, and its counterparts in other Western countries, are endeavoring to present Jewish racism as a normal, acceptable part of the civilized world. But no civilized person or country can accept Jewish racism. The sooner the traitorous powers of the Jewish lobby in America and elsewhere are curbed the better. The sooner the malignant racist influence of the Jewish dominated media in the western world is curbed the better. The sooner the Jews’ racist state is abolished the better.

The Jewish Transformation of America in to a Rogue Hyperpower.
The Jos has been a rogue state ever since it was founded. If anything, it has become an increasingly violent, and racist, state. For the last sixty years America has been regarded globally as the leader of the free world, the beacon of freedom and democracy shining around the world. However, over this time America has not merely failed to force the Jos into abolishing its racist nature so that it could join the civilized world, it has been manipulated increasingly by the Jewish lobby until it has now become a rogue hyperpower which does the bidding of the racist Jos. The Jewish lobby has transformed America into the splitting image of the racist Jos.

Postscript: The Miracles Wrought by Hezbollah.
What is so remarkable about Hezbollah is its intimate understanding of the Jos. Prior to the 1980s southern lebanon was mainly a semi-feudal peasant backwater. It had virtually no prospects for a prosperous future nor any likelihood of winning renown in history. In 1982, Sharon’s army swept through the area in a matter of hours leaving carnage behind it.

The people of southern Lebanon, like the Palestinians before them, were subjected to the cruel and brutal realities of life under an illegal Jewish occupation. They knew that unless they learnt from their Jewish oppressors they would never free themselves from oppression. Hezbollah organized all those opposed to the Jewish occupation whether Shia, Sunni, Christian, or secularist. It won popular support by promoting social, educational, health, and economic, policies alongside its political, and military, strategies. These policies utterly transformed the lives of south Lebanese peasants until they became capable of driving out their Jewish oppressors. This was one of the most dramatic social and military transformations in history. And, no matter whether those outside Lebanon like it or not, whether they approve of what was done or not, the ousting of the Jewish military from Lebanon was one of the most heroic fights against oppression in modern history.

After the liberation of southern Lebanon from Jewish terrorism, Hezbollah was confronted by the need to formulate a new strategy. It resisted the idea of going back to its terrorist past and decided to integrate itself into Lebanese society by participating in the political process. Hezbollah developed a rapprochement with all sectors of Lebanese society and dramatically diminished the fear of a return to the civil war that had ravaged the country for fifteen years between 1975-1990. But, at the same time, it knew enough about the Jos to realize another Jewish invasion was virtually inevitable. It knew the Jos desperately wanted revenge against Hezbollah to reassert Jewish military supremacism in the region. Ever since the Jewish military had been kicked out of Lebanon, it had carried out almost daily violations of Lebanese sovereignty – none of which were ever mentioned in the Jewish dominated western media. Hezbollah knew the Lebanese military could not defend the country from an attack by the Jos - it had neither the training, nor the resources, nor the determination derived from bitter personal experience - so Hezbollah alone had to prepare for this eventuality.

Nasrullah’s insights into the Jos led him to mock the Jews’ new political and military leaders for their incompetence and stupidity. Whilst the rest of the world feared the ferocious power of the world’s fourth most powerful military, Nasrullah knew its limitations. His insights turned out to be more accurate than anyone elses given the Jews’ disastrous attack on Lebanon. The war also exposed another interesting development – Jews’ listened avidly to Nasrullah’s broadcasts because he told them the truth about what was happening in the war - unlike the liars in their own government. Hezbollah has now triumphed twice over what was commonly deemed to be the invincible Jewish military.

From the outset of the Jews’ disproportionate and barbaric onslaught against Lebanese civilians many commentators predicted Hezbollah would never accept the presence of an international force on Lebanese soil. They looked back to what had happened in 1982 when the Jos manipulated American, French, and British, forces into the war on its behalf and also what happened during the Jewish occupation of southern Lebanon. That Hezbollah has now accepted United Nations’ resolution 1701, and thus the presence of an international force in its backyard, is indicative of its commitment to Lebanon’s democratic process. After its heroic stance against a vastly more powerful enemy, Hezbollah was faced by the choice of either consolidating its role as a state within a state - which would boost the prospects of a civil war or confrontation with the Lebanese army - or abiding by the Lebanese government’s decisions. It says much about Hezbollah’s multi-cultural, democratic credentials that it chose to prop up Lebanon’s fragile democratic system - even though it is rigged against the Shia.

In the mid-1990s. the Jewish lobby persuaded the Clinton administration to decree that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization. In the near future, it is likely the Bush administration will try to force the Lebanese government into renouncing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization even though it has committed no terrorist acts for over a decade. A couple of demands have already been made for the Lebanese government to eject Hezbollah from the political process on the spurious grounds of its support for terrorism. The Heritage Foundation has demanded, "Isolate Hezbollah and press the Lebanese government to expel it from the ruling coalition if it fails to disarm and halt terrorism. The U.S. should condition its offer of aid for Lebanon’s postwar reconstruction on the expulsion of Hezbollah from the ruling coalition. This will help to force Lebanese political leaders to do what they can to curtail Hezbollah’s political power." (James Phillips ‘Strong International Support Is Required to Build Peace in Lebanon’ Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1969 http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1969.cfm September 11, 2006). If this happens Hezbollah will once again become a state within a state rather than a respectable part of Lebanese society. This will likely result in the collapse of Lebanon’s fledgling democracy, the re-emergence of civil war, and another regional war with the Jos. Only hysterical, pathologically violent, paranoid, megalomaniacs would want to drive Hezbollah back into terrorism.

The first section of this article on America’s foreign policies is a summary of views outlined in
‘Americans Vanquished: Americans groveling at the feet of their Jewish Masters’.
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/WorksLatest/10tf26z002.html

More specifically, please see Chapter 5: The Impact of America’s Jewish Elite on America’s Foreign Policies.
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/WorksLatest/10tf26z002c.html

Zunes on the Jewish Holocaust against the Lebanese People.

2006-08-29T02:20:00.000-07:00

To the american jew, and self proclaimed left wing supporter of the racist jews-only state in palestine (jos), stephen zunes, it was america who pushed the jews into the attack on lebanon. "There is increasing evidence that Israel instigated a disastrous war on Lebanon largely at the behest of the United States. The administration of President George W Bush was set on crippling Hezbollah, the radical Shi'ite political movement that maintains a sizable block of seats in the Lebanese parliament." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH23Ak03.html Aug 23, 2006). America’s brutal wasp imperialists forced the peace loving, multi-cultural, jos into launching a psychotic attack on lebanese civilians and the country’s civilian infrastructure. Jewish society didn’t like their country’s aerial attacks on lebanese civilians and certainly didn’t want a ground war to be launched against hezbollah. "Despite US encouragement that Israel continue the war, Israel's right-wing prime minister has come under increasing criticism at home, with polls from the newspaper Ha'aretz indicating that only 39% of Israelis would support the planned expansion of the ground offensive." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH23Ak03.html Aug 23, 2006). However, zunes’s zionist whitewashing of reality refuses to confront the possibility that olmert’s popularity plummetted because of his failure to win the war not his willingness to fight it. It also ignores the reality that benjamin netanhayu’s soaring popularity suggested that what the jews wanted was a more comprehensive and brutal ground war rather than the mock invasion carried out solely for the benefit of rescuing the reputations of the olmert government and the invincible jewish military.

Zunes’s evidence for his contention that it was all the wasps’ fault consists of statements made by:

* consultants to the bush administration, "Seymour Hersh, in the August 21 New Yorker, quotes a Pentagon consultant" (a very unreliable source of truth);

* american politicians "Rumsfeld was "delighted that Israel is our stalking horse"." (an even more unreliable source);

* jewish administrators, "some Israeli officials, including top military officials, are furious at Bush for pushing Olmert into war" (more unreliable sources);

* jewish commentators in the american media, "the office of the White House press secretary released a list of talking points that included reference to a Los Angeles Times op-ed by Max Boot, senior fellow for national-security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The article .. urges an Israeli attack against Syria. "Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard," argued Boot, referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "If it does, it will be doing Washington's dirty work."" (way-off the scale of unreliability); and,

opinion polls in the jos, "there is growing recognition of US responsibility for getting them (jews) into that mess (in lebanon)."

Not exactly the sort of evidence on which to build a cast iron conclusion! What undermines his conclusion even more is the great bulk of evidence to the contrary - the "stranglehold" of the jewish lobby over congress; the jewish dominated american media; the jewish influence over america’s military industrial complex; and the primary source of america’s foreign policies over the last five years – ‘A Clean Break’ – the modern day version of the ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ written by dual citizen jewish conspirators.

In order to make the jews look good amidst the rubble they have created in lebanon, zunes has to make hezbollah look bad. He does this by condemning its allegedly reactionary social agenda. "The majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country's elected government." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH23Ak03.html Aug 23, 2006). Zunes possesses a peculiar trait of reversing the results of opinion polls so that warmongering jews in the jos oppose the war whilst opinion polls suggest the highly popular hezbollah have only minority support. Such a nebulous phrase as "reactionary fundamentalist social agenda" will appeal to the lefty marxist brigade, dominated as it is by jews, in the same way a low cut dress would appeal to a voyeur. The phrase is designed to cover up the fact that hezbollah’s "agenda" has transformed southern lebanon from grinding poverty into decent levels of economic prosperity; has fostered tolerance and pluralism with lebanon’s other faiths; and has played a critical role in reinforcing lebanon’s fragile democratic system. So, helping people to prosper, supporting multi-culturalism, and participating in democratic politics are now basic tenets of a reactionary fundamentalist agenda? Well it’s a long time since I had a good laugh at marxism but this certainly helps to bring back the tears. To zunes, hezbollah can be swept aside as a reactionary force in comparison to the wonderfully enlightened, secular, humane and peace-loving, jos.

Zunes refuses to praise hezbollah for its heroic military resistance to global imperialism. (It’s to be expected that he wouldn’t praise resistance to global jewish imperialism but surely he could have said something positive about resistance to what he believes was an example of global american imperialism?). On the contrary, like most neocons and other assorted neo-lefties, neo-liberals, and neo-greenies, zunes blames hezbollah for the jews’ grossly disproportionate attacks on lebanese civilians. "Hezbollah's provocative capture of the two Israeli soldiers that prompted the Israeli attacks" (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH23Ak03.html Aug 23, 2006). If a border scuffle resulting in the capture of two soldiers is now enough to legitimize the psychotic bombardment of a country’s civilians and infrastructure then ooman civilization is in deep trouble.

Zunes’s completes his whitewash of global jewish imperialism by claiming that america’s forcing of the jews into a war against lebanon was against jewish interests. "By contrast, the Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress clearly believed it was in the United States' interest for Israel to pursue Washington's "dirty work" for an indefinite period, regardless of its negative implications for Israel's legitimate security interests." Quite how this war was in america’s interests is impossible to determine no matter what the jewish financed muppets in congress and the media might say.

America’s Role in the Jews’ Blitz on Lebanon.

2006-08-21T15:22:00.000-07:00

Americans carrying out the Orders of their Jewish Masters.
Modern Day Flat Earthers.
For a couple of millenia it was nigh on impossible to convince local people in the western world that the Earth revolved around the sun given that everyday their senses were telling them that the sun was clearly revolving around the Earth. Today’s flat Earthers’ are those who look upon the reality of America’s hyper-power military status and then conclude that this military is being used to create an American empire - despite the masses of evidence pointing in the opposite direction. America may have a military hyper-power but american jews have a "stranglehold" over congress and bush and thus, in effect, control that military. The american military is being used to create a global Jewish empire. Bush’s philosophy, strategies, policies, and propaganda, are all jewish.

Many flat Earth commentators have pointed out that america’s propaganda is exactly the same as that coming from the jos. But, they do not seem to believe there is anything amiss or unusual about this even though america should have its own national, and geostrategic, interests in the middle east that are entirely different from those of the jos. How can two countries on opposite sides of the Earth have exactly the same national, geostrategic, interests?

Sharat G. Lin.
"The Bush administration, Congress, and the press repeatedly echo the Israeli government’s position that the current warfare between Israel versus Palestinians and Lebanese is a consequence of the "kidnapping" of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas-led militants on June 25, 2006 and the "abduction" of two more Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006." (Sharat G. Lin ‘Chronology of the Latest Crisis in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lin07252006.html July 25, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
The mainstream US and European media work as nothing but press offices of Israel's Foreign Ministry." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak02.html July 26, 2006).

Robert Fisk.
"According to US correspondents accompanying Ms Rice on her visit to the Middle East, she is proposing the intervention of a Nato-led force along the Lebanese-Israeli border for between 60 and 90 days to assure that a ceasefire exists, the deployment of an enlarged Nato force throughout Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and then the retraining of the Lebanese army before its own deployment to the border. This plan - which, like all American proposals on Lebanon, is exactly the same as Israel's demands - carries the same depth of conceit as that of the Israeli consul general in New York, who said last week that "most Lebanese appreciate what we are doing"." (Robert Fisk ‘Smoke signals from the battle of Bint Jbeil send a warning to Israel’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14223.htm July 27, 2006).

The Jews’ ‘Clean Break’ is a Modern ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion’.
The bush administration’s policies in the middle east all derive from the strategy outlined in paper called ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’. The contributors to this paper consisted primarily of jews in america such as richard perle, david and meyrav wurmser, and douglas feith. It was submitted to the jos’s prime minister of the time, binyamin netanyahu, in an attempt to change the jos’s policies away from peace with the palestinians. Some of these contributors had worked for previous american administrations whilst others would, in the future, become a part of bush’s administrations. This situation is remarkable: a group of supposedly american politicians writing position papers for a foreign government in an attempt to make that government more independent of american power so that it could pursue a far more belligerent foreign policy in the middle east that would undermine american interests in the region. It would be difficult to describe this situation without involving the word traitorous. Even the contributors realized that what they were doing might be seen as traitorous so the following year they formed a new organization called ‘project for a new american century’ and produced a new position paper in which they recommended that america should pursue the same policies they’d just recommended to the jos. In other words, all they did was to suggest that america would be better off if it implemented the policies that they’d designed to maximize the interests of another government i.e. the jos.

The philosophy, strategy, policies, and propaganda, of the bush administration and the rest of the western world towards the middle east come directly from the jos or its agents in america, the jewish lobby and the jewish dominated american media. Perhaps the most blatant example of this zionization of the west is the so-called war on terrorism. Since 1967, the jos had been fighting what it has defined as a war against terrorism – in reality palestinians’ legal resistance to jewish occupation. Since the turn of the millenium, the jews were able to get the bush administration to adopt this policy as its own so that instead of americans relentlessly pursuing osama bin laden, they’ve ignored al quaeda and focussed on attacking the enemies of the jos who pose no threat to america. The so-called war on terror is a jewish policy that the jewish lobby in america and the jewish dominated media imported into america and foisted upon a gullible, and jewish financed, president. Bush has become an ever increasing jewish muppet. He simply does everything the jews want him to do irrespective of the harm it is doing to american interests. To provide another example of the way the Jews have dictated Bush’s policies even against the advice of his own security agencies. "The president parrots the Israeli line that Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization that represents a mortal threat to Americans worldwide, but the reality is quite different, as the U.S. intelligence community recognized in a National Intelligence Estimate prepared in April, which, according to Laura Rozen, "says that Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans."" (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9542 August 16, 2006).

The global jewish empire controls the american congress and the bush administration and gets americans to do all their dirty work for them such as the proxy zionist invasion of iraq which has resulted in a major calamity for the american military. The jos, and the jews in america, are not in the least bit bothered by the shame they are imposing on america for doing their dirty work in iraq. After the pentagon and new york bombings virtually the whole world was sympathetic to americans’ plight. But, as a consequence of the americans implementing the foreign policies of the racist jos, the whole world has come to detest what americans are doing around the world. The americans experience no shame about their servility to the jos, "What you are witnessing is a disaster in the making – not only for Lebanon, which will require 50 years to recover, but for the United States, which stands exposed once again as a prejudiced hypocrite and an accessory to Israel's war crimes." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9385 July 22, 2006). Americans seem completely oblivious to the fact that the world despises them for implementing the jos’s policies. In the lebanon, the jews are using fighter jets paid for by American taxpayers to drop bombs that have also been paid for by american taxpayers to bomb innocent lebanese people – and the fuel used in these fighter planes has also been paid for by america. It is remarkable that the jews have succeeded in becoming so parasitic on america that they are able to get americans to pay for all the death and destruction they are wreaking? It is also amazing that americans simply do not care how much they are reviled around the world for contributing to the jos’s war crimes in the lebanon.

For the first two weeks of the jews’ onslaught against innocent lebanese civilians, western leaders, and a few arab leaders, dismissed the need for a ceasefire in order to allow the jews time to commit their war crimes. When it became obvious that the war wasn’t going the way the jews thought it would, several jewish-financed, world leaders such as tony blair began advocating the need for an international force to be set up in lebanon - not to effect a ceasefire, but to do the job the jos couldn’t do. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wants a ``robust'' international military force to try to oust Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon, as she prepares to leave on a diplomatic mission to the region next week." (Rice Seeks `Robust' Lebanon Force to Oust Hezbollah’ (Update2) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFfD.hAYqLU4&refer=home July 21, 2006). It is not in the least bit surprising that such a force would have been paid for by the international community. The international community seems willing to pay any price for the defence of the jewish racist state. If it had been implemented, this international force would have suffered many casualties. But to the jos that’s alright because at least these dimwits would have sacrificed their lives for the greater good of their jewish masters and the racist jos.

‘A Clean Break’ is basically an updated version of ‘The Elders of the Protocols of Zion’. In it the global jewish elite outlines the policies which it expects its non-jewish slaves in american politics to implement - policies that are solely beneficial to the jos. There is no such thing as an american empire. The global jewish empire rules america and much of the rest of the western world.

The following commentators believe that ‘A Clean Break’ is the primary document shaping the bush administration’s foreign policies. Whilst they admit that it was written by jews specifically for the jos in the hope of promoting the jos’s national interests, they simply will not draw the logical conclusion that extreme fundamentalist rabbis have taken over congress and the white house. They prefer to live on a flat Earth.

Naseer H. Aruri.
"Moreover, with US Middle East policy now consigned to the likes of David Wurmser, Edward Feit, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and other Sharon operatives in the think tanks, media and the administration, Syria's regional role will not be seen in the same context employed by Bush I and Baker. It should be recalled that David Wurmser helped draft a document entitled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role?" in 2000, which called for a confrontation with Syria, which it accused of developing "weapons of mass destruction". According to Charles Glass (‘Bashar Assad: The Syrian Sphinx,’ Independent, February 19, 2005) "Washington's neoconservatives were sharpening their knives for Syria long before they assumed office courtesy of George Bush. Many of them have already been advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu during his brief tenure as prime minister of Israel." Glass adds: "the American advisers, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, counseled Israel in 1996 that it can shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria,.an effort that can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."" (Naseer H. Aruri ‘Remapping the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/aruri02222005.html February 22, 2005).

Muriel Mirak-Weissbach.
"To understand the why of the assassination - although the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclear - one must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization. The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."" (Muriel Mirak-Weissbach ‘Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break'?’ Executive Intelligence Review February 25, 2005).

Pepe Escobar.
"No one at this point may predict with certainty what the Bush/Blair/Olmert troika is actually cooking. But there is the terrifying possibility that these may be the early stages of the Great Middle East war outlined in A Clean Break; the chance for the US/Israel axis to strike at both Syria and Iran - with no one, be it Russia, China or the cowardly EU, being able to stop it." (Pepe Escobar ‘Lebanon left for dead’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG21Ak01.html July 21, 2006).

Ray McGovern.
"The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neoconservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the Jan. 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz – Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (no.3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9460 August 2, 2006); "Although mcgovern states that some of the jewish neocons who wrote a Clean Break are in the bush administration and are thus helping to implement these policies and that congress is entirely dominated by jews and that the american media is almost entirely dominated by jews are are giving the bush’s clean break policies a huge cheer of approval the redoubtable mr mcgovern argues that america and the jos are just joined at the hip rather than bush being the jews’ puppy dog, "Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has U.S. stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing U.S. setback from which it will take decades to recover." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9460 August 2, 2006).

Sidney Blumenthal.
"In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration - Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide."

""A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."

"Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the "clean break" strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians. In the 1998 Wye River accords, concluded through the personal involvement of President Clinton and a dying King Hussein, the Palestinians agreed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from a portion of the occupied West Bank. Further negotiations, conducted by his successor Ehud Barak, that nearly settled the conflict ended in dramatic failure, but potentially set the stage for new ones."

"At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocons' next war’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon027.html August 03, 2006).

Daniel Levy.
"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The "clean break" was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of "Hashemite control in Iraq." The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush." (Daniel Levy ‘Ending the neoconservative nightmare’ http://www.haaretz.com//hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=746312 August 04, 2006).

William Rivers Pitt.
"Over the last several weeks, an old White Paper found new life in the shattered ruins of Lebanon's infrastructure. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper was masterminded by three neo-con hawks who, in the fullness of time, became powerful members of the Bush administration: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. The three were working for a pro-Israel think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies when the paper was first drafted.

"A Clean Break" was originally written for the benefit of Benjamin Netanyahu after he rose to the position of Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. This, in and of itself, was unique; it is rare indeed to have a trio of American foreign policy specialists crafting national security policy for a foreign power. Those who have seen the hand of the Israeli Likud Party guiding American foreign policy over the last several years base their premise, to no small degree, upon the involvement of these three men in Israeli affairs before their ascendancy in American government. The arguments contained in this document eventually became the basis for the now-infamous White Paper by the Project for the New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," which was authored in 2000.

Perle, Feith and Wurmser's vision for a new Israel centered around the re-invigoration of the discredited policy of pre-emption, i.e., attacking a perceived foe based on whatever premise can be found in order to show strength in the region and intimidate local governments into compliance. "Israel's new agenda," read the paper, "can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone, and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response."

Beyond reviving pre-emption, the paper argued that Israel's wisest course of action involved a military invasion of Lebanon, followed by attacks upon Syria and Iran. "Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil," read the paper. "An effective approach, and one with which American[s] can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

In order for pre-emption to be successful, according to the paper, a premise for attack must be established. It did not matter if the premise was based upon actual facts or genuine threat. It only needed to be plausible enough to rally the support of the American people. "A Clean Break" advocated attacking Lebanon and Syria based upon the premise that Syria is involved with laundering drug money and counterfeiting. The paper likewise instructed Netanyahu to draw the world's attention to Syria's WMD stockpiles.

Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to ignore the advice offered in "A Clean Break," and the paper was shelved. After George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office, however, the paper was given new life. Richard Perle became chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith became Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser became a senior State Department official before becoming Middle East Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

It became clear during the first national security meeting of the Bush administration, in late January 2001, that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of primary importance. The policy initiatives espoused in "A Clean Break" were dusted off and re-introduced. Pre-emption became the watchword for a new American foreign policy, and the establishment of a premise for the invasion of Iraq became a priority.

"A Clean Break" required little redacting to become central to American foreign policy regarding Iraq. "Israel can shape its strategic environment," read the original paper, "in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

The premise for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein came eight months later with the attacks of September 11. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein loathed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda - feelings that were entirely mutual - and had no hand in those attacks, 9/11 became the established premise for attack. Dire warnings of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles were spread far and wide, thanks to a concerted administration propaganda campaign and the help of a few well-placed members of the mainstream news media." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Everything Old Is New’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081506A.shtml August 15 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"I note that "mainstream" writers, such as Sidney Blumenthal, are now acknowledging the "Clean Break" plan, put together in 1996 by several key players in the Bush administration, which called for the elimination of Iraq as a prelude to going after Syria, and this is key to understanding Israel's actions. The important thing to remember about this scenario is that it was put together not for American policymakers, but for the benefit of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and that it summed up the program of a powerful faction, not only within Israel but also within the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Its thesis, embraced by American neoconservatives as well as Israeli hawks, was that Israel needed to make a "clean break" with the peace process, which was undermining the foundations of the Jewish state. It needed to break out of its passivity and make a new start characterized by a policy of relentless aggression, and there was only one direction it could go, at least initially: north, into Lebanon." (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9542 August 16, 2006).

The Jos’s Onslaught in Lebanon endangers American and British troops.
America’s support for the jews’ war crimes in lebanon endangered american troops occupying afghanistan and iraq. In other words, although the jews’ attacks on lebanese people are not in america’s interests, the bush administration continues to put the jos first.

Pepe Escobar.
"In Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was forced to issue a fatwa denouncing the Israeli assault. This means that Sistani knows very well Iraqi Shi'ites may be on the verge of turning all their anger against - who else - the occupying Anglo-American axis. The fatwa may not be enough to appease them. Israel's rampage has even unified Baghdad's parliament; Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds took a unanimous vote condemning Israel and calling for a ceasefire. Fiery nationalist Muqtada al-Sadr, whose rising influence rivals Sistani's in US President George W Bush's "democratic" Iraq, hinted what may happen when he said at his Friday sermon in Kufa, "I will continue defending my Shi'ite and Sunni brothers, and I tell them that if we unite, we will defeat Israel without the use of weapons." As if the few thousand Sunni Arab guerrillas bogging down the mightiest army in history were not enough, Muqtada's Mehdi Army has all the potential to make life even more hellish for the Americans in Iraq." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak02.html July 26, 2006).

Ray McGovern.
"One key Shia leader has objected to the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Baghdad, and Shia militias are increasingly clashing with U.S. troops. The Shia militias are also using more effective, armor-piercing IEDs. U.S. officers have expressed concern over what the Shia might do in reaction to the U.S. green light for Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Col. Patrick Lang (USA, ret.) has expressed grave concern over the vulnerability of U.S. supply lines from Kuwait into the Iraqi heartland, and Iran's ability to stir up the Shia in that area." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9460 August 2, 2006).

Juan Cole.
"Two more US troops were killed by guerrillas in al-Anbar province, western Iraq, on Wednesday. 12 have been killed in since Thursday a week ago.. Iraqi guerrilla leaders are said to have found it much easier to recruit insurgents and gain support for direct attack on US troops because of Israel's war on Lebanon. They have been able to do far more mortar attacks on US targets. The US military confirms that attacks on US military personnel in Iraq are way up recently. Has Ehud Olmert indirectly killed 12 US Marines and soldiers, and wounded many more, this week? I mean, while thousands of US and British troops were essentially hostage to the good will of millions of Iraqi Shiites all around them, was this really the appropriate time to launch a total war on Lebanese Shiites?" (Juan Cole ‘HRW: Israel Guilty of War Crimes’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 03, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"Israel's actions have put U.S. troops in Iraq in mortal danger. The other day, tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites demonstrated against the attack on Lebanon, crying "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!" in nearly the same breath. We have yet to defeat the Sunni-led insurgency, which is plunging the nation into civil war – what will we do when the Shi'ite majority turns its guns against us?" (Justin Raimondo ‘The New Munich’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9493 August 7, 2006).

Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker.
"The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." (Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker ‘Bombs Aimed at G.I.’s in Iraq Are Increasing’ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/middleeast/17military.html?ei=5088&en=1f12bd7a2ce6c19e&ex=1313467200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print%3E August 17, 2006).

Jews Endangering Americans in Iraq. This is in America’s National Interest???
The jews are carrying out a savage carnage against the lebanese people without being in the slightest bit bothered that this threatened not merely american troops in iraq but american citizens in lebanon.

Justin Raimondo.
"American soldiers in occupied Iraq may wind up being the biggest losers if the Israeli rampage is allowed to continue much longer. After all, these guys and gals are smack dab in the midst of a Shi'ite sea: for an American president to personally sanction the slaughter of Shias, which is shown on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya day after day, is to place our GIs in mortal danger. Our super-"patriotic" leaders in Washington never fail to invoke the courage and security of "our troops," but somehow this is lost sight of when it really matters. One has to wonder what country is the object of their patriotic fervor – because it sure isn't America." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Winners and Losers’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9413 July 26, 2006); "Hezbollah, on the other hand, has in the past disclaimed any intention of attacking America or American interests abroad. Nasrallah has denounced terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the 9/11 attack. "We reject those methods, and believe they contradict Islam and the teachings of the Quran, which do not permit this barbarity." Hezbollah's ire is aimed exclusively at Israel, and yet how long can this continue when their children, their parents, their family and friends are coming under fire from warplanes fueled by shipments from the U.S.? Those bombs falling on their heads are in large part paid for by the American taxpayers. And as Uncle Sam, disdaining all talk of a cease-fire, gives the green light to the Israelis to swallow southern Lebanon, one has to ask: Why are we making enemies of these people? In giving unconditional support to the invaders, Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has to answer this question: how does it further American interests? The answer is, it doesn't. Quite the contrary: it strengthens the deadliest of our enemies, the terrorist network associated with Osama bin Laden, and threatens to recruit Hezbollah – the "A-team" of Middle Eastern paramilitary factions – into a worldwide Islamic insurgency directed primarily against the United States." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430 July 28, 2006).

American Aid for their Jewish Racist Masters
Americans are not merely providing the airplanes and the munitions with which the jews are tearing up lebanon, they are even providing their jewish masters with aviation fuel.

Throughout the jewish blitz on lebanese civilians, the jos, the jewish dominated american government, and the jewish dominated media in the west, have continually blamed syria and iran for pushing hezbollah into attacking the jos and providing hezbollah with the missiles slamming into the jos. So what? Syria and iran are perfectly entitled to supply hezbollah with the weapons it needs to defend lebanon. The more the better if this is the only way to eradicate the apartheid jewish state. The jewish dominated media in the west never mention that the jews are using american weapons, munitions and fuel.

Pepe Escobar.
"Virtually every Lebanese knows that the missiles currently exterminating their compatriots were made in Miami, Duluth and Seattle." (Pepe Escobar ‘Leviathan run amok’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG19Ak02.html July 19, 2006).

Patrick Seale.
"Israel is able to behave in this way because it has been given extraordinary immunity by the United States. A striking aspect of the crisis is, indeed, America's total political, diplomatic and strategic support for Israel - even to the point of rushing to give it $300 million of aviation fuel with which to continue smashing Lebanon!" (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14191.htm July 25, 2006).

Jews carrying out America’s Policies in the Middle East?
The Pretense that America is calling the Shots.
Robert Novak.
"America has scant ability to influence what Israel does or even says, as shown by a startling exchange July 28 that received surprisingly little attention. When a Rome summit did not call for a cease-fire, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon exulted that amounted to a "green light" to crush Hezbollah. The official U.S. reaction came from a relatively low-level State Department official: "Any such statement is outrageous." But Israel understandably treated Rome as a green light." (Robert Novak ‘No political upside in criticizing Israel’ http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak07.html August 7, 2006).

Oil Again?
Uri Avnery.
"One day before the outbreak of this war, our Minister of National Infrastructures, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, took part in the inauguration ceremony of the big pipeline that will conduct oil from the huge Caspian Sea reserves to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, just next to the Syrian border. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline avoids Russia and passes through Azerbaijan and Georgia, two countries closely aligned with Israel, like Turkey itself. There is a plan to bring a part of the oil from there along the Syrian and Lebanese coast to Ashkelon, where an existing pipeline will conduct it to Eilat, to be exported to the Far East. Israel and Turkey are to secure the area for the United States." (Uri Avnery ‘In the Gunsight: Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery07312006.html July 31, 2006).

The Jews stirring up a Regional War against Syria and Iran?
Throughout the jewish blitz on lebanese civilians, the jos, the jewish dominated american government, and the jewish dominated media in the west, have continually blamed syria and iran for pushing hezbollah into attacking the jos. They also blame these countries for supplying hezbollah with the missiles slamming into the jos. The following is a list of commentators who believe jewish fundamentalits in america and palestine are agitating for the jos to spread the war from lebanon to syria and iran. For a list of the jews around the world endeavouring to push america into an attack on iran and thereby provoking a regional war please see, ‘The Jews Stirring up War Against Iran’.
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mr.html

Paul Craig Roberts.
"A terrible thing is happening, and not enough Americans are aware to be able to do anything about it. Zionists in Israel and in the Bush administration are leading America into war with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The consequences for America, Israel and the Middle East will be disastrous, but as long as Washington is in thrall to Zionist paranoia, nothing can be done about it. Bush made this clear on July 14 when he rejected the plea from Lebanon’s prime minister to pressure Israel to stop its attack on Lebanon." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Attention Deficit Americans Are Being Misled to War’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9311 July 15, 2006).

Patrick J. Buchanan.
"Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Where Are Bush's Critics Now?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9328 July 19, 2006).

Trita Parsi.
"As fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah persists, an Israeli strategy of enlarging the conflict seems to be crystallizing. Neo-conservative pundits in the US have pointed an accusatory finger at the usual suspect, Tehran, arguing that Hezbollah was pushed by Iran to open a new front against Israel to capitalize on Israel's involvement in Gaza and to draw attention away from the controversy around Tehran's nuclear program." (Trita Parsi ‘It's not just about Hezbollah’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG20Ak03.html July 20, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
"No one at this point may predict with certainty what the Bush/Blair/Olmert troika is actually cooking. But there is the terrifying possibility that these may be the early stages of the Great Middle East war outlined in A Clean Break; the chance for the US/Israel axis to strike at both Syria and Iran - with no one, be it Russia, China or the cowardly EU, being able to stop it." (Pepe Escobar ‘Lebanon left for dead’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG21Ak01.html July 21, 2006).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"Consequently, with the initial Israel-US goal of a swift crippling of Hezbollah fast turning into a nightmare quagmire in Lebanon, thus causing a major regional conflagration, the much-dreaded "wider war" seems all but inevitable - it is the wider "war on terrorism" that will bring both al-Qaeda and, by implication, the US back to the Lebanese theater of conflict." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘A war without borders in the making’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG29Ak01.html July 29, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"The IDF is openly committing war crimes, with the full knowledge and sanction of the Americans and the Brits – and, as the rest of the world looks on in horror, it doesn’t seem to me as if they’ll stop in Lebanon. The War Party is on the warpath, and there is no political opposition at home – at least, not in the U.S. – to act as a brake on their killer instincts. If I were Syrian, I’d hightail it out of Damascus, or start building a bomb shelter. And in Tehran, they must be holding their collective breath, straining to hear the drone of American (or Israeli) fighter jets as they glide in over the horizon…" (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9459 August 02, 2006

Sidney Blumenthal.
"By using NSA intelligence to set an invisible tripwire, the Bush administration is laying the condition for regional conflagration with untold consequences - from Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Israel. Secretly devising a scheme that might thrust Israel into a ring of fire cannot be construed as a blunder. It is a deliberate, calculated and methodical plot." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocons' next war’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon027.html August 03, 2006).

Seymour M. Hersh.
"He (a Middle East expert) went on, "The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Watching Lebanon: Washington’s interests in Israel’s war’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact August 14, 2006).

The Jews’ Merciless War on Lebanese Civilians.

2006-08-21T15:11:00.000-07:00

The Jews’ Long Term Preparations for their Attack on Lebanon.
Introduction.
The jews had been preparing to attack Hezbollah for many years. They promoted the cedar revolution in the spring of 1995 in order to remove the syrian miltary from lebanon to make it feasible to attack hezbollah. The jews had even practiced their military invasion. All that the jews were doing was waiting for the right pretext to attack Hezbollah.

Uri Avnery.
"Now it is not a secret anymore: this war has been planned for a long time. The military correspondents proudly reported this week that the army has been exercising for this war in all its details for several years. Only a month ago, there was a large war game to rehearse the entrance of land forces into South Lebanon - at a time when both the politicians and the generals were declaring that "we shall never again get into the Lebanon quagmire. We shall never again introduce land forces there." Now we are in the quagmire, and large land forces are operating in the area." (Uri Avnery ‘Is Beirut Burning?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14220.htm July 26 2006).

News Report.
"Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Hersh said Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings. "When they grabbed the soldiers in early July, that was then a pretext" for Israel's assault on Hezbollah, Hersh said Sunday on CNN television." (‘US Involved in Planning Israel’s Operations in Lebanon’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060813/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictus_060813183058 August 13, 2006).

Eric Margolis.
"According to Israeli media, Israel had apparently been planning the Lebanon invasion for the past three years and conducted a mock invasion of Lebanon only a month ago. President George Bush had strongly urged Israel’s PM Ehud Olmert to attack Hezbullah as the first stage in a US-British-Israeli campaign against Syria and Iran." (Eric Margolis ‘The Lebanon Curse strikes again’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis43.html August 16, 2006).

It was just a Taunt.
Some commentators believe that the jews’ blitz on lebanon was just a spontaneous reaction to hasan nasrullah’s taunting of ehud olmert.

Eric Margolis.
"But PM Olmert, enraged by Nasrallah’s taunting that he was "small" compared to Ariel Sharon, went to war, egged on by George Bush, who rushed Israel fuel and munitions." (Eric Margolis ‘The Lebanon Curse strikes again’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis43.html August 16, 2006).

Blaming Hezbollah for crossing into the Jos and triggering the Jewish Blitz.
The jews blamed hezbollah for invading their territory and abducting two soldiers. This enabled them to blame hezbollah for the war. They believed this gave them a legitimate reason for carrying out a massive blitz on lebanese civilians. The western dominated media supported the jews’ analysis. As did many commentators.

Robert Fisk.
"It's about Syria. That was the frightening message delivered by Damascus yesterday when it allowed its Hizbollah allies to cross the UN Blue Line in southern Lebanon, kill three Israeli soldiers, capture two others and demand the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails." (Robert Fisk ‘Beirut waits as Syrian masters send Hezbollah allies into battle’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1174059.ece July 13, 2006); "No, let us not forget that the Hizbollah broke international law, crossed the Israeli border, killed three Israeli soldiers, captured two others and dragged them back through the border fence. It was an act of calculated ruthlessness that should never allow Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to grin so broadly at his press conference. It has brought unparalleled tragedy to countless innocents in Lebanon. And of course, it has led Hizbollah to fire at least 170 Katyusha rockets into Israel." (Robert Fisk ‘What I am watching in Lebanon each day is an outrage’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14000.htm July 15, 2006); "Lebanon, as usual, was paying the price for the Hizbollah-Israeli conflict - as Hizbollah no doubt calculated they would when they crossed the Israeli frontier on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers close to Marwaheen." (Robert Fisk ‘Hizbullah's Response Reveals Months of Planning’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14006.htm July 16, 2006); "So fierce has been Hizbollah's resistance - and so determined its attacks on Israeli ground troops in Lebanon - that many people here no longer recall that it was Hizbollah which provoked this latest war by crossing the border on 12 July, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two others." (Robert Fisk ‘A terrible thought occurs to me - that there will be another 9/11’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1214522.ece August 05, 2006). "Israel itself, according to reports from Washington and New York, had long planned its current campaign against Lebanon - provoked by Hizbollah's crossing of the Israeli frontier, its killing of three soldiers and seizure of two others on 12 July - but the Israelis appear to have taken no account of the guerrilla army's most obvious operational plan: that if they could endure days of air attacks, they would eventually force Israel's army to re-enter Lebanon on the ground and fight them on equal terms." (Robert Fisk ‘As the 6am ceasefire takes effect... the real war begins’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219037.ece August 14 2006); So who is to blame for this desert? The Shia militia which provoked this war - or the Israeli air force and army which has laid waste to southern Lebanon and killed so many of its people?" (Robert Fisk ‘Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece August 15 2006).

Ehsan Ahrari.
"Iran is suspected of supporting the bizarre action of Hezbollah of Lebanon crossing Israel's borders to kill and kidnap its soldiers. Israel's response has been more disproportionate than anticipated by Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah." (Ehsan Ahrari ‘Russia and the Making of a Multipolar World’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ahrari.php?articleid=9319 July 18, 2006).

Shmuel Rosner.
"Hezbollah guerrillas crossed from Lebanon into Israel last week and snatched two Israeli soldiers, prompting Israel to launch the most intensive offensive against the country since 1982." (Shmuel Rosner and Shlomo Shamir ‘Senators initiate resolution supporting Israel, condemning Hezbollah’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739473.html July 18, 2006).

Jonathan Cook.
"Early on July 12 Hizbullah launched a raid against an army border post, in what was in the best interpretation a foolhardy violation of Israeli sovereignty." (Jonathan Cook ‘Five Myths That Sanction Israel's War Crimes’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook07262006.html July 26, 2006).

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
"In a break with traditional Arab solidarity over any confrontation with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt denounced Hezbollah for "adventurism" in abducting two Israeli soldiers along the Israel-Lebanon border, the incident that precipitated the current violence and destruction." (Jim Lobe ‘Strength in unity’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG29Ak03.html July 29, 2006).

George Monbiot.
"There has been a heated debate on the internet about whether the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah that day were captured in Israel or in Lebanon, but it now seems pretty clear that they were seized in Israel. Yes, Hizbullah should have been pulled back from the Israeli border by the Lebanese government and disarmed. Yes, the raid and the rocket attack on July 12 were unjustified, stupid and provocative, like just about everything that has taken place around the border for the past six years. But the suggestion that Hizbullah could launch an invasion of Israel or that it constitutes an existential threat to the state is preposterous. Since the occupation ended, all its acts of war have been minor ones, and nearly all of them reactive." (George Monbiot ‘Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html August 8, 2006).

Seymour M. Hersh.
"In the days after Hezbollah crossed from Lebanon into Israel, on July 12th, to kidnap two soldiers, triggering an Israeli air attack on Lebanon and a full-scale war, the Bush Administration seemed strangely passive." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Watching Lebanon: Washington’s interests in Israel’s war’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact August 14, 2006).

The Jews’ Hypocrisy about Holding Hostages.
The jews’ proposition that kidnapping two soldiers justified their attack on lebanese civilians and infrastructure is false and shameful.

Firstly, the jews initiated the practice of kidnapping lebanese people and imprisoning them illegally in the jos, "Indeed, Israel initiated hostage-taking in Lebanon, kidnapping noncombatant Hezbollah leaders in 1989 and 1994." (George Bisharat ‘Most Lebanese Now Know Who Their Real Tormentor Is’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bisharat07252006.html July 25, 2006).

Secondly, over the years the jews have frequently invaded lebanon to capture prisoners. "Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too seriously when Israel is holding literally thousands of captured Palestinians, many for years, typically without any due process, many tortured; as well as holding a number of prominent Hezbollah members." (William Blum ‘They simply can't stop lying, can they?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/blum07262006.html July 26, 2006); "In the late 1990s, before Israel was evicted from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, it was a common practice for Israel to abduct entirely innocent Lebanese. As a 1998 Amnesty International paper declared: "By Israel's own admission, Lebanese detainees are being held as 'bargaining chips'; they are not detained for their own actions but in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing in action or killed in Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and isolated detention."" (William Blum ‘They simply can't stop lying, can they?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/blum07262006.html July 26, 2006); "The last time Israel forces were known to have gone that far on the ground into Lebanon was in 1994, when they abducted Lebanese guerrilla leader Mustafa Dirani, hoping to use him to obtain information about missing Israeli airman Ron Arad. Dirani was released in a prisoner exchange 10 years later." (Israeli Troops trapped inside Lebanese Hospital by Hezbollah Fighters’ http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=01894d05-efb6-4303-9da3-33ebdd325f09&k=13232 August 01, 2006).

Thirdly, at the last minute during the last hostage negotiations between the jos and hezbollah, the jews reneged on returning three lebanese prisoners they’d promised to swop for jews held in lebanon. If they’d not reneged on this deal then hezbollah would have had no need to capture any jewish soldiers to try and force the racist jews to live up to their word and release the prisoners they’d promised to release.

Fourthly, ever since their first defeat at the hands of hezbollah in 2000, the jews had been carrying out incursions into lebanon on a daily basis. "As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism. Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict. Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern." (Anders Strindberg ‘Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html August 01, 2006); "Finally, Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, but it has not respected Lebanon's sovereignty for a single day since. As every UN report for the years 2000-2006 stresses, Israeli jets have violated Lebanese air space by daily overflights, sowing anxiety by sonic booms over populated areas." (Ran HaCohen ‘The End of Lebanon? http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=9496 August 8, 2006).

Fifthly, border squirmishes between hezbollah and the jews were a frequent occurrence. "In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation"." (George Monbiot ‘Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html August 8, 2006); "The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. "They’ve been sniping at each other," he said. "Either side could have pointed to some incident and said ‘We have to go to war with these guys’ - because they were already at war."" (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Watching Lebanon: Washington’s interests in Israel’s war’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact August 14, 2006).

Sixthly, even if hezbollah had crossed into the jos to capture the soldiers how could it be trespassing when the jos refuses to define its borders? "I did say exactly that, adding that, "Israel should not enjoy the defense of principles it doesn’t respect." Israel, since its inception, has never declared its borders. Its so-called borders are "armistice lines" which reflect the result of military conflict. The only reason, for example, that Israel’s border with Lebanon is where it is, and not on the Litani river, is the dogged resistance of Hizbullah, which forced Israel to retreat to that border. Nevertheless, Israel has repeatedly, since 1948 till today, sent its soldiers and agents to act behind international borders, and has never accepted any legal limitation on its forces. The list is too long to cover here, but we can mention a few major signposts: the Qibya massacre (1953), the Suez War (1956), the attack on Samua (1966), the 1967 War, the Litani operation (1978), the 1982 war, and of course, the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 to the present. To focus on Lebanon, we know that Israel planned to occupy Southern Lebanon already in the early '50s, but raids on Lebanon started in 1968, and haven’t stopped since. Israel helped plunged Lebanon into the civil war, bombed villages in Lebanon repeatedly since 1968, killing thousands of civilians all the way to the massacre in Qana in 1996, in which 106 Lebanese refugees perished inside a U.N. compound. Israel maintained an oppressive and murderous occupation of Lebanon, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council, for 18 years, in which 20,000 people perished. Since leaving Lebanon, Israeli fighter jets have repeatedly violated Lebanon sovereignty, and Israeli military units have infiltrated Lebanon at will. In February 2006, for example, U.N. investigators confirmed that Israeli soldiers shot and killed a teenage shepherd inside Lebanon. [1] According to Israeli propaganda logic, Lebanon should have razed Haifa to the ground in retaliation. Borders mean almost as little to Israel as the life of the civilians behind it. So yes, in solidarity with the nine thousand Palestinian political prisoners languishing in Israeli jails, Hizbullah did breach Israel sovereignty. It may have been reckless or shortsighted, but it was in no way unjustified. Jewish religious law applies perfectly: "He who steals from a thief is not liable."" (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel, Lebanon: Defense Against the Black Arts’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash24.htm July 24, 2006); "Since Israel recognizes neither international laws nor international borders, there was nothing morally wrong in Hizbullah's fighters crossing the border into Israel to raid a military patrol." (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel's Terrorism’ http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm July 18, 2006).

Finally, the jews could quite easily have retaliated against hezbollah and then settled for an exchange of prisoners. "No one in Beirut believes that Israel's primary objective is to free its captured soldiers. Israel still holds Lebanese prisoners it abducted years ago, and could have negotiated an exchange, as it has done in the past." (George Bisharat ‘Most Lebanese Now Know Who Their Real Tormentor Is’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bisharat07252006.html July 25, 2006).

The reason the jews attacked lebanon with such psychotic ferocity is that they had been planning this war ever since hezbollah had heroically removed the jewish nazi occupiers in lebanon. It is not surprising that hezbollah were caught off guard by the ferocity of the jews’ attack. "Still, the intensity of the Israeli bombing campaign appears to have taken Hizbullah aback. Mahmoud Komati, the deputy head of Hizbullah's politburo told the Associated Press, "the truth is - let me say this clearly - we didn't even expect [this] response ... that [Israel] would exploit this operation for this big war against us."" (Nicholas Blanford ‘Israeli strikes may boost Hizbullah base’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html July 28, 2006).

The Jews’ Response to Hezbollah’s Capture of Two Jews was a Pretext not a Justification for War.
It is absurd to argue that hezbollah’s arrest of two jewish soldiers provoked the jos into a massively disproportionate response. This incident was just an excuse for the jos to implement a long prepared war plan. Hezbollah was not acting immorally or illegally.

Charley Reese.
"Instead of sending a special-forces team or setting up negotiations for a prisoner exchange, Israel launched an all-out attack, knocking out bridges, roads, airports and fuel facilities, and doing enormous damage to civilians. Only then did Hezbollah respond with rockets, as it certainly had a right to do. Israeli journalists have pointed out that Israel has been planning for years to destroy Hezbollah and is using the raid as an excuse." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9385 July 22, 2006).

Paul Craig Roberts.
"It is ignorant and immoral to blame the conflict on Hamas and Hezbollah. These organizations were created by Israeli aggression." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Complicit in Destruction of Lebanon’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9392 July 24, 2006).

Sharon Smith.
"This incident merely provided Israel with the excuse for a major assault on Lebanon. Israel's ridiculous claim that it is attacking Lebanon to get its soldiers back is belied by the fact that Hezbollah has repeatedly offered to exchange the two Israeli soldiers for Lebanese and Palestinian political prisoners held by Israel (a common practice in the past)-but Israel has refused. Israel has no interest in a prisoner exchange because the captured soldiers provide the excuse for unleashing its full military might against Hezbollah." (Sharon Smith ‘Lebanon and the Future of the Antiwar Movment’ http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon07272006.html July 27, 2006).

Tanya Reinhart.
"The way it started, there was nothing in Hezbollah's military act, whatever one may think of it, to justify Israel's massive disproportionate response. In the six years since Israel withdrew, there have been frequent border incidents between Hezbollah and the Israeli army, and cease-fire violations of the type committed now by Hezbollah, have occurred before, initiated by either side, and more frequently by Israel. None of the previous incidents resulted in Katyusha shelling of the north of Israel, which has enjoyed full calm since Israel's withdrawal. It was possible for Israel to handle this incident as all its predecessors, with at most a local retaliation, or a prisoner exchange, or even better, with an attempt to solve this border dispute once and for all. Instead, Israel opted for a global war. As Peretz put it : "The goal is for this incident to end with Hezbollah so badly beaten that not a man in it does not regret having launched this incident [sic]."[7] (Tanya Reinhart ‘Burning Lebanon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/reinhart07272006.html July 27, 2006).

Paul Findley.
"Using the skirmish as a pretext for war, Israel is now trying to wipe out northern resistance to their colonialism." (Paul Findley ‘In Wake of Qana, Israel and US seen as Terrorists’ State Journal-Register, Springfield, Illinois August 3, 2006).

Uri Avnery.
"As Nehemia Strassler wrote in Haaretz: They could have stopped after two or three days, when all the world agreed that Hizbullah's provocation justified an Israeli response, when nobody was yet doubting the capabilities of the Israeli army. The operation would have looked sensible, sober and proportional." (Uri Avnery ‘Knife in the Back’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html August 3, 2006).

George Bisharat.
"The blow had been planned for at least a year, awaiting only the pretext of Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers. Hizbullah seized them to trade for Lebanese detainees that Israel had previously refused to release. If Hizbullah indeed attacked inside Israel - some reports initially located the skirmish in Lebanon - it violated Israel's sovereignty, took Israeli lives, and committed grave wrongs - but did nothing to justify the destruction of a country." (George Bisharat ‘Bombing Milk Factories, Grain Silos, Churches, Bridges, Lighthouses, Power Stations...’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bisharat08042006.html August 4, 2006).

George Monbiot.
"A "senior Israeli official" told the Washington Post that the raid by Hizbullah provided Israel with a "unique moment" for wiping out the organisation. Israel's assault, then, was premeditated: it was simply waiting for an appropriate excuse." (George Monbiot ‘Israel responded to an unprovoked attack by Hizbullah, right? Wrong’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839281,00.html August 8, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"As opposed to the heroic narrative marketed by the Lobby and its friends, which portrays this as a defensive war, a mere reaction to Lebanese attacks, the reality is that this is the most cynical exercise in brazen aggression since the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia in the run-up to World War II." (Justin Raimondo ‘The New Munich’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9493 August 7, 2006); We can see, however, that it takes very little for a "skirmish" to turn into an all-out war: this, after all, is what precipitated the present conflict to begin with – a border skirmish between the IDF and Hezbollah, which Israel used as a pretext to put into operation its long-standing plan to take out Hezbollah." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel, Defeated’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9533 August 14, 2006).

The Jos’s Initial War Aims.
The jos’s original war objective was merely to regain their two arrested soldiers. This objective was changed almost immediately into the disarming and disbandment of hezbollah. Some commentators believed the jews had even more grandiose objectives.

Deterence: Revenge for the Jos’s Defeat in 2000.
After its defeat at the hands of hezbollah in 2000, the jos has been reluctant to invade lebanon. It knew an invasion would be very costly in lives. However, the jewish military was eager to launch an invasion, and re-occupation, of southern lebanon because they wanted a chance to exact revenge against hezbollah, re-establish their military supremacism in the region, and recover their aura of military infallibility.

Ehsan Ahrari.
"Israel's war against Lebanon is about reestablishing its conventional deterrence." (Ehsan Ahrari ‘Israel's Bid to Reestablish Deterrence Is Failing’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ahrari.php?articleid=9473 August 4, 2006).

Disarming and Disbandment of Hezbollah.
Daniel Ayalon.
"It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill - Hezbollah neutralization. If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said. "The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented," said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel."" (Robin Wright ‘Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500957_pf.html July 16, 2006).

Sami Moubayed.
"Israel entered the war in Lebanon to liquidate Hezbollah. If it can free its two captive soldiers (seized on July 12), this would be a plus for the Israelis. But the real objective of the war is to destroy Hassan Nasrallah and his Hezbollah. Israel succeeded in expelling Yasser Arafat from Lebanon in 1982 and it believes that with military might, it can do the same today to Nasrallah." (Sami Moubayed ‘Bunkered down for a war of attrition’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG22Ak01.html July 22, 2006).

A Jews-only Southern Lebanon: the Jews’ Ethnic Cleansing of Southern Lebanon; Jews carrying out the depopulation of Southern Lebanon.
The jews used their unchallengeable air power to drive innocent lebanese civilians out of southern lebanon as the first step towards depopulating southern lebanon. The benefits of this ethnic cleansing strategy are: firstly, to curb hezbollah’s opportunities for using the local population as a cover for striking back against any jewish invasion/occupation force. The more the jews could depopulate southern lebanon before an invasion takes place, the more difficult it would be for hezbollah to resist the invasion and any subsequent occupation. The jews would prevent shiites who have been pushed out of southern lebanon from returning to their land. If the jews could make southern lebanon uninhabitable it would minimize the need to police the area and minimize casualties.

The jews intention to depopulate southern lebanon was referred to in the jewish dominated western media as the creation of a sterile buffer zone – an area in which nobody lives. In recent terminology this has been called ethnic cleansing but the old fashioned word is much more accurate, ‘Lebensraum’. Yes indeed, here once again the jews are acting like their nazis progenitors.

Gabriel Ash.
"Israel is resorting to the one strategy it has perfected since the day it was created, murdering civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring "militants" and uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc. Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering. Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred Guernicas. To be clear, Israel's actions fit the very definition of terrorism. Doubly so now, since the bombing campaign is a response to attacks on Israeli soldiers, not civilians." (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel's Terrorism’ http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm July 18, 2006).

Juan Cole.
"A lot of their bombardment appears aimed at punishing civilian populations and forcing them north to Beirut. Such an approach would help explain the high number of civilian casualties. That is, there may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Invades Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 18, 2006). Cole was more convinced about his conclusion a few days later, "Not satisfied to have made 500,000 out of 3.8 million Lebanese homeless already, and to have chased over 100,000 out of their own country to Syria, AP says that on Thursday 'Israel warned hundreds of thousands of people to flee southern Lebanon "immediately ..."' I repeat, this is nothing less than an ethnic cleansing of the Shiites of southern Lebanon, an assault on an entire civilian population's way of life." (Juan Cole ‘Israelis Bomb Beirut, Baalbak Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 21, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
"Israel officially ordered the entire population of southern Lebanon in essence to become IDPs (internally displaced persons)." (Pepe Escobar ‘Lebanon left for dead’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG21Ak01.html July 21, 2006).

Paul Craig Roberts.
"Gentle reader, do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Shame of Being an American’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9381 July 22, 2006).

Eugene Robinson.
"Destroying the Beirut airport, blasting communications towers into oblivion and cleansing southern Lebanon of its civilian population are not measures the world will see as an attack on Hezbollah terrorists." (Eugene Robinson ‘It's Disproportionate’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400810_pf.html July 25, 2006).

Patrick Seale.
"Its strategy in Lebanon seems to be to empty the south of its population, driving the Shi'ites out of their traditional homeland, where they have lived for centuries, in much the same way as it continues its pitiless onslaught on Gaza. In Lebanon, some 600,000 people have already been displaced, while the entire country is being brutalized and strangled." (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14191.htm July 25, 2006).

Sami Moubayed.
"Olmert wants to clear a 1.5km zone in south Lebanon from Hezbollah. To do that, it needs to station troops a long way into Lebanese territory, up to the Litani River that is 20km in the Lebanese heartland." (Sami Moubayed ‘Hezbollah banks on home-ground advantage’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak01.html July 26, 2006).

Robert Fisk.
"For the second time in eight days, the Israelis committed a war crime yesterday. They ordered the villagers of Taire, near the border, to leave their homes and then - as their convoy of cars and minibuses obediently trailed northwards - the Israeli air force fired a missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees and seriously wounding 13 other civilians. The rocket that killed them is believed to have been a Hellfire missile made by Lockheed Martin in Florida. Nine days ago, the Israeli army ordered the inhabitants of a neighboring village, Marwaheen, to leave their homes and then fired rockets into one of their evacuation trucks, blasting the women and children inside to their deaths. And this is the same Israeli air force which was praised last week by one of Israel's greatest defenders - Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz - because it "takes extraordinary steps to minimize civilian casualties"." (Robert Fisk ‘Israelis Bomb Fleeing Villagers’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Fisk07242006.html July 24, 2006).

Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon.
"Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon "said that in order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops moved in. He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter. "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said. Ramon made these comments on Israeli Army radio. He was apparently not asked about the IDF’s practice of blowing up the cars full of civilians fleeing south Lebanon. Ramon has made stark the standards that the Israelis are using, and there is no excuse for any American politician or citizen to continue denying that the Israelis are not intentionally targeting civilians en masse." (James Bovard ‘Israeli Justice Minister: IDF Entitled to Kill Everyone in South Lebanon’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/07/27/israeli-justice-minister-idf-entitled-to-kill-everyone-in-south-lebanon/ July 27th, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"They want to set up a sanitized "zone" cleansed of all Arabs, all Muslims, all possible resistance, the northern equivalent of the great Wall of Separation they're building to keep the Palestinians from their historic lands." (Justin Raimondo ‘The Return of the Neocons’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9440 July 31, 2006).

Alexander Cockburn.
"Israel is systematically trying to destroy Lebanon as a functioning social and economic entity, cleanse the south and reoccupy up to the Litani River." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Triumph of Crackpot Realism’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312006.html July 31, 2006).

Paul Larudee
"A Lebanese nakba is taking shape in much the same way; even the numbers of refugees are roughly the same. The only other comparable Israeli action was in the Golan Heights in 1967, where nearly the entire population of 130,000 was put to flight. In both of the previous cases, the territories thus emptied of most of their indigenous populations were then incorporated into the state of Israel." (Paul Larudee ‘The Clearing of South Lebanon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/larudee08082006.html August 8, 2006).

Eric Margolis: The Bulldozers have moved into Lebanon.
"Israel’s latest plan: occupy and depopulate a 20-mile deep chunk of Lebanon to the Litani River until an international force comes in and subdues what’s left of Hezbullah. Israeli armored bulldozers are now busy razing villages in what it calls the "security zone." So far, one million Lebanese – a third of that ravaged nation’s population – have been made refugees by Israel’s bombing and shelling." (Eric Margolis ‘A Foolhardy War, Unleashed by Fools’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis42.html August 09,2006). The bulldozer is the symbol of jewish justice.

Jewish State Terrorism.
By definition the jews-only state is a racist terrorist state. Its attempt to carry out ethnic cleansing in lebanon is simply one further piece of evidence that the jos is a terrorist state.

The Jos’s so-called Justice Minister, Haim Ramon.
"Everyone remaining in southern Lebanon will be regarded as a terrorist, Israel's justice minister said yesterday as the military prepared to employ "huge firepower" from the air in its campaign to crush Hizbollah. "What we should do in southern Lebanon is employ huge firepower before a ground force goes in," Mr Ramon said at a security cabinet meeting headed by Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah. Our great advantage vis-a-vis Hizbollah is our firepower, not in face-to-face combat." Mr Ramon's comments suggested that civilian casualties in Lebanon, which stand at about 600 after 16 days of bombardment, could rise yet higher. The government's unrelenting line has the backing of the Israeli media, which are demanding a harsh response to an ambush in the Hizbollah stronghold of Bint Jbeil, in which eight soldiers died. The country's biggest-selling paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, said the army had raised the threshold of response to Katyusha rockets. "In other words: a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire," it said. "This decision should have been made and executed after the first Katyusha. But better late than never."" (Harry de Quetteville ‘You're all targets, Israel tells Lebanese in South’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml July 28, 2006).

Patrick Seale.
"Terrorism is usually defined as the indiscriminate killing of civilians in pursuit of political goals. Is this not what Israel is doing in both Lebanon and Gaza? It is killing large numbers of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians in pursuit of its political aim of annihilating Hizballah and Hamas. By any objective standard, Israel is guilty of state terrorism." (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14191.htm July 25, 2006).

The Annexation of Southern Lebanon.
It is also possible that if the invasion of lebanon had been a success then they would have tried to annex the southern half of the lebanon. In other words, the jews are intent on stealing more land from the arabs. By far and away the greatest reward for an invasion, occupation, annexation, of southern lebanon would be access to the invaluable water resources of the litany river.

Justin Raimondo.
"The Israeli invasion of Lebanon – which many predict will include the de facto annexation of a southern "buffer zone" – has the fulsome support of both (american jew-owned) parties." (Justin Raimondo ‘Will We Go to War for Israel?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9314 July 17, 2006).

Paul Craig Roberts.
"Right-wing Israelis say Israel needs southern Lebanon as a buffer against Hezbollah. If Israel were to succeed in driving Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon, Israel would then want a buffer for southern Lebanon, where Israeli settlements would quickly spring up, and after that buffer, another, just as Israel has gobbled up Palestine." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Complicit in Destruction of Lebanon’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9392 July 24, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
"There's also the all-important matter of the waters of the Litani River in southern Lebanon. Israel might as well prepare the terrain now for the eventual annexation of the Litani. Beyond Lebanon, Israel is mostly interested also in Syria. The motive: the all-important pipeline route from Kirkuk, in Iraqi Kurdistan, to Haifa. Enter Israel as a major player in Pipelineistan. So Israel wants to grab water (and territory) from Palestine, water (and territory) from Lebanon and oil from Iraq. This all has to do with the inevitable - the 21st-century energy wars." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak02.html July 26, 2006).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"Officially, Israel's ground invasion of Lebanon is an act of self-defense against Hezbollah's threat, aimed at creating a security buffer zone until the arrival of a "multinational force with an enforcement capability". But increasingly, as the initial goal of a narrow strip of only a few kilometers has now been extended up to the Litani River deep in Lebanon, the real motives behind Israel's invasion are becoming crystal-clear. It's about (de facto) annexation, stupid. This is a war to annex a major chunk of Lebanese territory without necessarily saying so, under the pretext of security buffer and deterrence against future attacks on Israel. Access to the Litani would translate into an annual increase of water supply by 800 million cubic meters. This in turn might allow Israel to bargain with Syria over the Golan Heights, source of a full one-third of Israel's fresh water. However, a more likely scenario is Israel's continued unwillingness to abide by United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 calling for its withdrawal from the Syrian territories." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘It's about annexation, stupid!’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH05Ak01.html August 05, 2006).

Sam Hamod.
"What Israel really wants is control of Lebanon by a puppet government, but also covets the Litani River and the lands it irrigates - very good cropland that is the heart of the Bekka Valley, which is the heart of Lebanese agriculture. Israel also wants the electricity the dams and the Litani generate -so that they may use this for more of their "settlements" and, just like Hitler, they want this area but use different names for their taking of the land of others." (Sam Hamod ‘Israel Wants the Litani River Water and Farmlands’ http://www.aljazeerah.info/13%20o/Israel%20Wants%20the%20Litani%20River%20Water%20and%20Farmlands%20By%20Sam%20Hamod.htm August 13, 2006).

Alan Hart.
"I think it's also more than reasonable to presume that they saw the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Lebanon up to the Litani River, with a view, eventually, to occupying and then annexing the ethnically cleansed territory. For Zionism this would be the fulfilment of the vision of modern Israel's founding father, David Ben-Gurion - a Zionist state within "natural" borders, those borders being the Jordan River in the East and the Litani River of Lebanon in the north. Israel gained control of the Jordan River border in its 1967 war of expansion, but prior to its rush to war on 12 July, all of its attempts to establish the Litani border had failed." (Alan Hart ‘The Lebanon War, a Post-Mortem’ http://www.counterpunch.org/hart08182006.html August 17, 2006).

The Occupation of all Lebanon.
Uri Avnery.
"Now the generals are convinced that there is no alternative to occupying the whole area up to the Litani River, about 24 km from the border, in order to prevent the rockets from being launched from there. Then they will find out that they have to reach the Awali River, 40 km inside - the famous 40 km which Menachem Begin talked about in 1982. Even now, the army commanders assert that new rockets are flowing all the time from Syria to Hizbullah. True, the roads have been bombed, the bridges destroyed, but the arms somehow continue to arrive. The Israeli government demands that an international force be stationed not only along the Israeli-Lebanese border, but on the Lebanese-Syrian border, too. The queue of volunteers will not be long." (Uri Avnery ‘In the Gunsight: Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery07312006.html July 31, 2006).

Collective Punishment - The Palestinianization of Lebanon.
Hezbollah arrested two jewish soldiers who’d trespassed onto lebanese soil. The jos used this as an excuse to launch a barbaric, cowardly, and grossly disproportionate attack not on hezbollah nor the lebanese military but on the lebanese people and the country’s economic and industrial infrastructure. The jews are blatantly implementing collective punishment on lebanon - a war crime. In effect, they are trying to bring about the palestinianization of lebanon – the complete destruction of all economic and public structures – just as they have done in palestine and just what they have got their american muppets to do in iraq.

There are radicals who argue that what the jews are doing is trying to bring about the lebanonization of the middle east i.e. the break up of all the largest countries in the middle east to be replaced by small statelets like those that had existed in lebanon during the 1970s which would all compete with each other to win the favours of the jos. If only this was the case! What the jews are doing is far more radical. They are trying to emasculate their opponents so that they become impoverished displaced persons without any protection even from a small state.

Just as the jews have locked up the palestinians in small enclaves and then decimated their economic infrastructure reducing them to displaced people hoping to starve them into submission, so the jews are applying exactly the same tactics to lebanon. They are blockading the seas and the countries borders to prevent any humanitarian aid reaching the lebanese people and they are deliberately slaughtering innocent lebanese people, driving them from their homes, in order to starve them into submission.

Juan Cole.
"The Israelis hit Lebanese privately owned factories on Tuesday, including a dairy farm! These targets had absolutely nothing to do with Hizbullah, and were not military targets. These strikes are war crimes and part of a continuing Israeli campaign to ensure that Lebanon is economically poor and weak for decades to come. Israel switched gears in its military campaign against Lebanon Monday and Tuesday, launching a series of debilitating air strikes against privately owned factories throughout the country and dealing a devastating blow to an economy already paralyzed by a week of hits on residential areas and crucial infrastructure. The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country's largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant - have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Targets Milk, Medicine Factories’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 18, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
"Pursuing their own logic, equally impatient Washington neo-cons and Israeli Likudniks would cherish nothing better than the wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and then in Syria and Iran." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak02.html July 26, 2006).

Alexander Cockburn.
"Israel is systematically trying to destroy Lebanon as a functioning social and economic entity, cleanse the south and reoccupy up to the Litani River." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Triumph of Crackpot Realism’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312006.html July 31, 2006).

Eric Margolis.
"It is hard to see how Lebanon, already saddled with crushing debts from rebuilding after the 1980’s war, can ever afford to repair the current devastation. Continuing the war may turn ruined Lebanon into a chaotic, anarchic failed state and incubator for more violent groups." (Eric Margolis ‘A Foolhardy War, Unleashed by Fools’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis42.html August 09,2006).

The Jos’s Political Aims after its Defeat.
The Creation of an Ever Expanding Buffer Zone.
The jews tried to create an ever expanding buffer zone between the jos and hezbollah.

The 1.5km Buffer Zone.
"Olmert wants to clear a 1.5km zone in south Lebanon from Hezbollah. To do that, it needs to station troops a long way into Lebanese territory, up to the Litani River that is 20km in the Lebanese heartland." (Sami Moubayed ‘Hezbollah banks on home-ground advantage’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak01.html July 26, 2006).

The 5m Buffer Zone.
"While meeting fierce resistance in southern Lebanon, the Israeli army claimed progress. Commanders said Israeli troops had knocked out half of Hezbollah’s long-range rockets and seized positions in or near 20 towns and villages as part its offensive to carve out a five-mile Hezbollah-free zone." (Israeli Commandos attack Lebanese city of Tyre’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14196226/ August 5, 2006).

The 13m Litany River Buffer Zone.
""I (Defense Minister Amir Peretz) gave an order that, if within the coming days, the diplomatic process does not reach a (successful) conclusion, Israeli forces will carry out the operations necessary to take control of Katyusha rocket launching sites in every location," Peretz told a parliamentary committee in broadcast remarks. Peretz was speaking after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met top defense officials to discuss broadening air and ground strikes. Political sources said Peretz had urged at the meeting a further advance to the Litani River, 20 km (13 miles) inside southern Lebanon." (Israel to expand Lebanon offensive if no truce soon’ http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=TopNews&storyid=2006-08-07T185352Z_01_L07534637_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L1-RelatedNews-1 August 7, 2006).

The Jews’ Opposition to the Creation of an International Force in Lebanon.
Uri Avnery.
"No one talks anymore about eliminating Hizbullah or disarming it and destroying all the rockets. That has been forgotten long ago. At the start of the war, the government furiously rejected the idea of deploying an international force of any kind along the border. The army believed that such a force would not protect Israel, but only restrict its freedom of action. Now, suddenly, the deployment of this force has become the main aim of the campaign. The army is continuing the operation solely in order to "prepare the ground for the international force", and Olmert declares that he will go on fighting until it appears on the ground." (Uri Avnery ‘Knife in the Back’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html August 3, 2006); "At the beginning of the war, Olmert himself strenuously objected to such a force, because it would restrict the freedom of action of the Israeli army." (Uri Avnery ‘The Junkies of War’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08072006.html August 7, 2006).

Ian Williams.
"In fact, now that the Israeli vision of rapid and complete victory has evaporated, they want an international force so much that their former robust refusal has dropped down the memory hole." (Ian Williams ‘A force to be reckoned with’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH04Ak03.html August 04, 2006).

The Jews’ demand for an International Force to Disarm Hezbollah – The Jewish Protection Agency.
An international force in lebanon to protect the jos could be called a Jewish protection agency.

Ehud Olmert.
"After meeting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said both agreed that disarming Hizbollah and deploying an international force in its place in southern Lebanon were key to resolving the two-week-old crisis. Israel said it would hold a "security strip" inside southern Lebanon until that force arrived." (Sue Pleming ‘Olmert vows to press Hizbollah war’ http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-25T152251Z_01_L21898716_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&src=072506_1148_TOPSTORY_olmert_to_pursue_war July 25, 2006).

Ashraf Isma’il.
"For all of these reasons, Israeli attempts to impose terms on Lebanon, or to redraw the political map of Lebanon, or even to impose a NATO force upon Southern Lebanon, are not militarily feasible nor politically achievable, and if attempted, will prove ultimately unsustainable. As will soon be demonstrated by events on the ground, Israel will not be able to destroy or even disarm Hizballah. Neither will Hamas, Hizballah, Lebanon, or Syria permit Israel or America to dictate terms to them. Consequently, if Israel lingers too long in Southern Lebanon, its presence will be paid for at such a high cost, that it will be forced to withdraw in ignominy, as it has so many times in the past." (Ashraf Isma’il ‘Why Israel is Losing’ http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 25, 2006).

Robert Fisk.
"Does Ms Rice think the Hizbollah want to be disarmed? By Nato? Wasn't there a Nato force in Beirut which fled Lebanon after a group close to the Hizbollah bombed the US Marine base at Beirut airport in 1983, killing 241 US servicemen and dozens more French troops a few seconds later? Does anyone believe that Shia Muslim forces will not do the same again to any Nato "intervention" force? The Americans are talking about Egyptian and Turkish troops in southern Lebanon; Sunni Muslims ruling Shia territory. The Hizbollah has been waiting and training and dreaming of this new war for years, however ruthless we may regard the actions. They are not going to surrender the territory they liberated from the Israeli army in an 18-year guerrilla war, least of all to Nato at Israel's bidding." (Robert Fisk ‘Smoke signals from the battle of Bint Jbeil send a warning to Israel’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14223.htm July 27, 2006).

The Jews’ Cowardly War against Lebanon.
The Jews’ Aerial Bombardment of Lebanese Civilians.
The jews’ blitz on lebanon was cowardly because it was waged almost exclusively from a distance beyond the reach of any military retaliation by hezbollah. They fired artillery shells from ships anchored safely in the mediterranean and from cannons placed in the relative safety of the jos (usually alongside a palestinian home); they dropped vast number of bombs from aircraft which faced no anti-aircraft fire; and they used pilotless drones to attack small scale targets like civilian convoys. They believed they could win the war solely by using an aerial bombardment to trigger a civil war against hezbollah. So, during the first three weeks of the blitz, they launched only small-scale incursions into lebanon. It has to be added, however, that they also relied on this tactic because of their fear of confronting hezbollah in a ground invasion – they were already suffering heavy casualties even during these minor incursions. It was only when the jews’ realized that their psychotic bombardment of the lebanese people was failing to turn them against hezbollah that they launched a full scale ground attack.

Gabriel Ash.
"Israel is resorting to the one strategy it has perfected since the day it was created, murdering civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring "militants" and uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc. Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering. Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred Guernicas. To be clear, Israel's actions fit the very definition of terrorism. Doubly so now, since the bombing campaign is a response to attacks on Israeli soldiers, not civilians." (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel's Terrorism’ http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm July 18, 2006).

Saree Makdisi.
"After three weeks of devastating bombardment, Israel's much vaunted army finds itself unable to fight its way more than a few kilometers into Lebanon. The heavy resistance they have encountered on the ground is the most obvious explanation for why the Israelis prefer on the whole to go on dropping bombs on children from a safe distance: not only is it less dangerous, it also involves much less effort." (Saree Makdisi ‘Time to Call It Quits’ http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi08032006.html August 3, 2006).

Jews’ Aimed to Provoke a Civil War in Lebanon.
The objectives of a purely aerial attack on the lebanese people were either to provoke the lebanese military into attacking hezbollah or to trigger a civil war against hezbollah – either of which would make a jewish ground invasion a lot less dangerous.

Pepe Escobar.
"Thus Israel's real objective must be to provoke civil war in Lebanon …" (Pepe Escobar ‘Leviathan run amok’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG19Ak02.html July 19, 2006).

George Bisharat.
"It further hopes that a rain of death and destruction will turn the Lebanese people against Hezbollah, and pressure the Lebanese government to confront the stubborn resistance organization." (George Bisharat ‘Most Lebanese Now Know Who Their Real Tormentor Is’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bisharat07252006.html July 25, 2006).

Uri Avnery.
"That is well illustrated by the planning and execution of the current war. This was based on the assumption that if we cause terrible suffering to the population, they will rise up and demand the removal of Hizbullah. A minimal understanding of mass psychology would suggest the opposite. The killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, belonging to all the ethno-religious communities, the turning of the lives of the others into hell, and the destruction of the life-supporting infrastructure of Lebanese society will arouse a groundswell of fury and hatred - against Israel, and not against the heroes, as they see them, who sacrifice their lives in their defense." (Uri Avnery ‘Is Beirut Burning?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14220.htm July 26 2006).

Sidney Blumenthal.
"Her jaunt to the region is intended to lend the appearance of diplomacy in order to forestall it. As explained to me by several senior state department officials, Rice is entranced by a new "domino theory": Israel's attacks will demolish Hizbullah; the Lebanese will blame Hizbullah and destroy its influence; and the backlash will extend to Hamas, which will collapse. From the administration's point of view, this is a proxy war with Iran (and Syria) that will inexplicably help turn around Iraq. "We will prevail," Rice says." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocon resurgence’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1830932,00.html July 27, 2006).

Seymour M. Hersh.
"The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon’s infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon’s large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing campaign. "The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Watching Lebanon: Washington’s interests in Israel’s war’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact August 14, 2006).

A Typically Jewish War – Getting other people to Fight their Racist Wars.
In 1990, the jews manipulated the bush administration into reversing its support for saddam’s invasion of kuwait. They encouraged the americans to force saddam out of kuwait.

In 2003, the jews got their dumb american serfs to do their dirty work for them by invading iraq.

The jews’ blitz against lebanon was doubly cowardly since they not merely dropped bombs on civilians from afar but because they tried to get other people to fight their war i.e. by provoking a civil war against hezbollah. The jews have used the same tactic against the palestinians. "Thus Israel's real objective must be to provoke civil war in Lebanon - just as it did everything to provoke civil war in Palestine. The strategy is always the same. Israel wants Fatah to crush Hamas in Palestine, and now it wants the government in Beirut to crush Hezbollah. Or else ..." (Pepe Escobar ‘Leviathan run amok’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG19Ak02.html July 19, 2006); "In Gaza, Israel has been engineering a debilitating struggle for power between Fatah and Hamas, while in Lebanon whatever hollow shell of national unity has existed till now is in danger of cracking under the strain of the Israeli onslaught." (Jonathan Cook ‘Israel's Disproportionate Violence No Surprise’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9390 July 22, 2006).

When the jews started their aerial blitz against lebanese civilians they were totally opposed to the idea of an international peace keeping force being sent to lebanon to enforce a ceasefire. However within a couple of weeks they were demanding that such a force should be used to disarm hezbollah and police a buffer zone in lebanon between the racist jos and hezbollah. This was yet another ploy to get other people to do their fighting, and dying, for the defence and promotion of jewish racism. Hezbollah would not allow itself to be disarmed by what would appear to it to be a jewish protection agency. It has to be suggested that if the jews want a buffer zone from hezbollah then they should depopulate the northern part of the jos. Justin raimondo was fearful the jewish protection agency would consist primarily of american troops, "Israeli soldiers are too precious to be used in such a casualty-heavy operation: they're only good for bullying Palestinian civilians and bulldozing houses. It's time for the Americans to take bullets for the Israelis – to fight a war that is unambiguously for Israel's sake." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430 July 28, 2006).

The jews began a full scale invasion of lebanon just two days before a ceasefire was due to come into operation. The jewish army deliberately used the cover of a un resolution to launch a full scale invasion and then, when the ceasefire deadline arrived, called a halt to its operations to prevent hezbollah from launching a counter-act which would have caused it a considerably number of casualties. In other words, the ceasefire did not prevent the jewish army from winning in lebanon. On the contrary, it ensured that jewish losses were minimized and that the jewish army would not have to suffer an ignominious retreat under fire from hezbollah. That the jews could use a un peace resolution to launch an invasion, and then use the ceasefire to protect itself from any retaliation by hezbollah, adds to the cowardliness of its operations in lebanon.

The jews’ psychotic aerial bombardment against defenceless lebanese civilians symbolizes what the jos is all about.

The Jews’ Mock Invasion of Lebanon.
An earlier version of this section appeared on the ziopedia website
http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/1218/1/

Jewish ground incursions pushed gradually into lebanon over the five weeks of the war. First the jews took the border, then moved 1.5 miles into lebanon, then 4 miles, then 8 miles. Whilst they boasted about making territorial progress they never succeeded in subduing the areas they’d occupied. Small scale attacks and minor battles continued to rage even on the border. However, as the un security council got closer to an agreement over the terms of a ceasefire, the jewish army suddenly launched a massive invasion of southern lebanon involving thirty thousand soldiers. Troops in southern lebanon began moving north whilst a large number of paratroopers were airlifted to the litany river to secure the area before moving south. "Under cover of intense artillery fire, IDF forces reached the Litani River, which is some 20 to 30 kilometers inside Lebanon, military officials said Saturday evening. As part of the expanded operation, IAF helicopters dropped a large number of Israeli troops deep inside Lebanese territory on Saturday, in the largest operation of its kind since 1973." (Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi ‘24 IDF soldiers killed Saturday in south Lebanon’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749479.html August 13, 2006).

The strategy behind this audacious military manoeuvre was to cut off hezbollah warriors in southern lebanon preventing them from being resupplied from the north. Once the jewish army was established along the litani it would then begin to move southwards in line with the withdrawal required by the ceasefire agreement. Whilst this retreat was taking place the jewish army was supposed to conduct intensive mopping up exercises across the whole of southern lebanon which would put an end to hezbollah’s rocket attacks on the jos. The jewish army would thus use a un resolution, intended to bring peace in lebanon, to wipe out hezbollah. "Israel has nearly tripled the number of forces in Lebanon as part of its expanded ground war, and expects to fight for another week, despite a United Nations cease-fire resolution, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Saturday. Halutz said IDF troops would stay in Lebanon until an international force arrives. "We have almost tripled our forces that are operating in Lebanon," Halutz told reporters. A top IDF official has said that the army will stop its offensive as soon as it is ordered to do so by the political leadership and later it will begin to retrace its steps to uncover any pockets of resistance that may remain in the area." (Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi ‘24 IDF soldiers killed Saturday in south Lebanon’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749479.html August 13, 2006). The prospects of the jews’ army slaughtering even larger numbers of innocent civilians than its air force, seemed an all too frightening possibility.

However, right from the start this massive military manoeuvre didn’t proceed as it had been publicly outlined. Hezbollah was waiting for the jewish army at the litany river and inflicted heavy casualities. "only hours after their leader, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, warned Israel on Saturday that his men were waiting for them on the banks of the Litani river, the Hizbollah sprang their trap, killing more than 20 Israeli soldiers in less than three hours." (Robert Fisk ‘As the 6am ceasefire takes effect... the real war begins’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219037.ece August 14 2006).

The jews’ massive invasion didn’t even stop hezbollah from launching its biggest rocket attack on the jos. "despite the IDF's advance, Hezbollah fired some 250 rockets on Israel, the war's heaviest one-day total to date. The strikes killed one person and wounded dozens." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006). Once again, hezbollah was sending out a message to the world in great contradiction to the impressions being created by the jewish dominated western media. How was it possible for hezbollah fighters to launch such a large scale attack on the jos when southern lebanon was supposed to have been under seige? What was going on?

Firstly, it transpired that the jewish army made no real attempt to take control of the litany river to cut off southern lebanon. "IDF sources admitted that in the time remaining until the cease-fire takes effect, the army will only manage to reach the Litani River - which was the goal of the current offensive - in a few places." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006). Secondly, and even more shockingly, it was reported that the jewish army wasn’t going to conduct any mopping up exercises during their withdrawal from lebanon. "The intention is for the forces to move back to a line north of the border with Lebanon within about 10 days, or as soon as the Lebanese Army is ready to begin entering south Lebanon. This means that the IDF will not be conducting searches for Hezbollah fighters or arms caches in the areas that it has captured over the last few days, which the army defined as "the heart of the operational campaign" against Hezbollah." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006).

Thirdly, and most shockingly of all, was that once the ceasefire came into operation, the jews started withdrawing their forces from southern lebanon almost immediately, "The army is recommending that once the cease-fire takes effect, Israel should begin withdrawing its forces from Lebanon relatively quickly." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006); "The Israeli army plans to withdraw from southern Lebanon in as little as seven to 10 days and to hand over some of its forward positions to U.N. troops within 48 hours, Israeli officials said on Tuesday. The expedited timetable reflects growing concerns that Israeli forces will become easy targets for Hizbollah the longer they stay. Uri Bar-Joseph, a professor of international relations at Haifa University, said that with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in place since Monday, Israel's army had little choice. "We cannot clear this area of Hizbollah fighters and waiting another two or three weeks for an international force will mean more Israeli soldiers will die," he said. Israel had initially said its troops would start pulling out only once an expanded UNIFIL and the Lebanese army began deploying. But the Israeli political source said the army wanted to let reservists go home and avoid unnecessary casualties." (Adam Entous ‘Israel plans to leave Lebanon in under 10 days’ http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topnews&storyid=2006-08-15T125122Z_01_L15668635_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L1-RelatedNews-3 August 15, 2006); "We are hoping the last IDF soldiers will cross the border in a matter of days," Maj. Jonathan Davis of the Israel Defense Forces said in an interview near the border. "We want to do it as quickly and swiftly as possible. As soon as UNIFIL and the Lebanese army are ready to assume responsibility in the area, which we hope is as soon as possible, we will leave."" (Edward Cody and Doug Struck ‘Hezbollah Balks At Withdrawal From the South’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081500322_pf.html August 16, 2006). By wednesday august 16, 2006 a mere two days after the ceasefire came into effect, the jewish army had virtually disappeared from lebanon. "According to LBC satellite news, most Israeli troops have withdrawn from Lebanon, except for some villages right on the border between the two countries." (Juan Cole ‘Hizbullah Rejects Syrian Position’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 17, 2006).

The famed jewish army, for decades deemed to be invincible, had basically scarpered out of lebanon. Reporters were having a hard job finding any evidence of the jewish army in lebanon. "Israel's mighty army has already retreated from the neighbouring village of Ghandoutiya after losing 40 men in just over 36 hours of fighting. It has not even managed to penetrate the smashed town of Khiam where the Hizbollah were celebrating yesterday afternoon. In Srifa, I stood with Hizbollah men looking at the empty roads to the south and could see all the way to Israel and the settlement of Mizgav Am on the other side of the frontier. This is not the way the war was supposed to have ended for Israel." (Robert Fisk ‘Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece August 15 2006). Such was the speed of the withdrawal that fisk doubted the size of the invasion force. "Indeed, last night, scarcely any Israeli armour was to be seen inside Lebanon - just one solitary tank could be glimpsed outside Bint Jbeil and the Israelis had retreated even from the "safe" Christian town of Marjayoun. It is now clear that the 30,000-strong Israeli army reported to be racing north to the Litani river never existed. In fact, it is unlikely that there were yesterday more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers left in all of southern Lebanon, although they did become involved in two fire-fights during the morning, hours after the UN-ceasefire went into effect." (Robert Fisk ‘Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece August 15 2006). Another reporter provided additional evidence, "While Israel claimed to have flooded south Lebanon with 30,000 soldiers in its final offensive, an AP reporter who drove Monday from Tyre to the Israeli border and through several destroyed villages along the frontier saw only one Israeli tank." (Steven R. Hurst ‘Rockets hit Lebanon despite Ceasefire’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel August 15, 2006).

Over the weekend of 12-13 August the jos had launched what threatened to be a horrendously bloody ground war and yet, within minutes of the ceasefire coming into operation in the early hours of Monday morning, the jews stopped fighting and started retreating. At the same time, tens of thousands of lebanese citizens started heading back home to the devastation of southern lebanon. They would have made such a decision only if hezbollah had told them it was safe to return. Hezbollah knew the jewish army had been defeated in lebanon and weren’t going to prolong the war.

During the five weeks of the war, the jews had obtained overwhelming evidence that they could not remove hezbollah fighters even from the border let alone across the whole of southern lebanon. "The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in twenty places to the mortal attacks of the guerillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons." (Uri Avnery ‘The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08172006.html August 17, 2006). If the jews had launched their massive invasion in the way they publicly outlined, their withdrawal southwards would have left them dangerously exposed to hezbollah warriors. They might have ended up suffering an ignominious retreat under fire.

So what was the jewish army actually trying to do by launching a last minute offensive? One commentator believes that hezbollah had been so successful that the jos implemented a full scale invasion in order to try and win a small victory to cover their abject defeat. "Israel's sudden push to the Litani River is a blatant act of political desperation intended to conceal the humiliating defeat the IDF has suffered at the hands of Hezbollah." (Mike Whitney ‘The Litani Gambit’ http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08142006.html August 14, 2006).

Whitney’s argument fails because there was no mass invasion. Most of the small number of troops who’d been dropped off close to the litany river were airlifted out of the country after short clashes with hezbollah whilst the main bulk of the jewish army, close to the jewish border, took a short walk out of the country. The "full scale invasion" turned out to be just a mock invasion - a public relations’ gimmick designed to provide ehud olmert with the chance to declare he’d won the war because the jewish army had supposedly fought its way to the litany – a victory which would maintain the illusion of the jews’ military invincibility. "If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation (a land offensive) after all - well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical - not to say vile - exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory", as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed. The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the cease-fire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani. This time, when the cease-fire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place." (Uri Avnery ‘The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08172006.html August 17, 2006).

It is a shocking conclusion but the jewish army had been dealt a crushing defeat by hezbollah. "Speaking at a journalists' conference in Damascus on Tuesday, Syrian President Bashar Assad said. "Today after almost five weeks, Israel is struggling to occupy a few hundred meters here and there" in southern Lebanon, while in a 1982 invasion, Beirut was surrounded within seven days, Assad said."" (Joel Greenberg ‘Israel, Hezbollah debate war's success, victor’ http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15281787.htm August 15, 2006).

The jews’ war strategy had been a military catastrophe. Their primary strategy had been to provoke a civil war. Once this failed to materialize they had no other strategy to fall back upon to achieve their ever more grandiose war objectives. Their incursions into lebanon at the start of the war would have indicated all too clearly that a ground invasion would be a military disaster, "This operation (the land offensive), which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them." (Uri Avnery ‘The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08172006.html August 17, 2006). The only land invasion that was feasible was a gimmick which could be protected from a disaster by a un ceasefire.

It needs to be emphasized that the jews spent nearly three years preparing for this war. They knew from their last occupation of lebanon that hezbollah was a formidable fighting force which employed specific military tactics. And yet the jews never employed any special counter-tactics to eradicate hezbollah. Within a month of starting the war they ran out of contingency plans so the only option left was to scarper to safety. Such was the military catastrophe that it gave the impression that the jews hadn’t made any preparation for the war, which was after all their war of choice, but had attacked lebanon simply out of blind rage because olmert had been angered by nasrullah’s taunts. "The real cause of the latest Lebanon war, wrote (Haaretz columnist Doron) Rosenblum, was not seizure of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbullah, but an earlier TV speech by Hezbullah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, that provoked Israel’s leaders to fury and an act of supreme folly. Nasrallah taunted Israel’s new triumvirate of PM Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, sneering they were "small" compared to Ariel Sharon. "Adding fuel to the fire," wrote Rosenblum, "Nasrallah emphasized the 'small' with his fingers."" (Eric Margolis ‘A Foolhardy War, Unleashed by Fools’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis42.html August 09,2006).

After the war was over, "a senior commander" in the jos’s military put his spin on the events – not surprisingly, blaming jewish politicians for the disaster. "The army asked the government for a five-day ground operation to reach the Litani River and was ready on Monday, Aug. 7, the commander said. "The government asked us to wait because of the negotiations, and we waited Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and most of Friday," he said. Only then, when the negotiations at the United Nations were going against Israel, did Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz order the expanded ground operation, which had only been approved by the Cabinet on Wednesday, Aug. 9." (Stephen Erlanger ‘Israel Committed to Block Arms and Kill Nasrallah’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt399.html August 20, 2006). A five day operation would have been even more of a bloody disaster and an even bigger defeat than a two day one but this is the last thing a jewish military leader is willing to admit.

The war against lebanon was also a political disaster for the jos. It pathologically implemented a long term plan for a nasty, vicious bombing campaign against lebanese civilians. Its psychoticly violent attacks shocked substantial sections of the western public. It showed itself to be utterly cowardly for its aerial attacks, its deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, and its attempt to resuscitate the lebanese civil war that, a couple of decades earlier, had torn the country apart. It launched a ground invasion only when it knew it could extricate itself from any significant counter-attack because of the ceasefire. The only things the jewish military are good at is killing innocent civilians, murdering women and children, and getting other people to fight their filthy racist wars. "Lebanon, which has never fought Israel and has 40 daily newspapers, 42 colleges and universities and hundreds of different banks, is being destroyed by our planes and cannon and nobody is taking into account the amount of hatred we are sowing. In international public opinion, Israel has been turned into a monster, and that still hasn't been calculated into the debit column of this war. Israel is badly stained, a moral stain that can't be easily and quickly removed. And only we don't want to see it." (Gideon Levy ‘Days of darkness’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744061.html July 31, 2006). The racist jos has shown itself to be not merely beyond contempt but militarily vulnerable. This can only be good for the sake of peace and justice in the middle east and around the rest of the world.

It is scarcely believable that hezbollah inflicted a catastrophic defeat on the world’s fourth most powerful military. The common view was that, "Israel has all the military muscle it needs to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah. If and when it achieves these goals, an outside interlocutor will have to broker a cease-fire between the belligerents, assist the Lebanese army in disarming Hezbollah ..." (Leon Hadar ‘Let Mideast be EU's problem’ http://www.antiwar.com/ocregister/hadar-mideast.html July 21, 2006). The jewish army scarpered out of lebanon before hezbollah inflicted on it even greater casualties. If the jewish army had not used the ceasefire to defend itself, it would have been forced to endure another ignominious retreat like the one it had suffered in 2000. Jewish politicians in the jos are currently being condemned by the jewish military for agreeing to a ceasefire thereby preventing the army from doing what it had to do in lebanon to win the war. The reality is, however, that the ceasefire prevented the jewish army from suffering even greater losses than it did. The ceasefire did not stop the jewish military from winning - it prevented the jewish military from suffering an even more ignominious disaster. After a life time of ignoring un resolutions, the jews were suddenly insisting that everyone obeys every last detail of resolution 1701 in order to extricate its army from the mess it had got itself into. The jewish army lays in ruins exactly like much of southern lebanon. The words of ashraf isma’il turned out to be prophetic. "For all of these reasons, Israeli attempts to impose terms on Lebanon, or to redraw the political map of Lebanon, or even to impose a NATO force upon Southern Lebanon, are not militarily feasible nor politically achievable, and if attempted, will prove ultimately unsustainable. As will soon be demonstrated by events on the ground, Israel will not be able to destroy or even disarm Hizballah. Neither will Hamas, Hizballah, Lebanon, or Syria permit Israel or America to dictate terms to them. Consequently, if Israel lingers too long in Southern Lebanon, its presence will be paid for at such a high cost, that it will be forced to withdraw in ignominy, as it has so many times in the past." (Ashraf Isma’il ‘Why Israel is Losing’ http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 25, 2006).

Jewish Supremacism on Display.
The Callousness and Viciousness of the Jos.
Uri Avnery.
"Years of the occupation regime in the Palestinian territories have caused a terrible callousness as far as human lives are concerned. The killing of ten to twenty Palestinians every day, including women and children, as happens now in Gaza, does not agitate anyone. It doesn't even make the headlines. Gradually, even routine expressions like "We regret…we had no intention…the most moral army in the world…" and all the other trite phrases are not heard anymore." (Uri Avnery ‘Is Beirut Burning?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14220.htm July 26 2006).

Dan Gillerman.
"Mr Gillerman said "something very important was missing" from Mr Annan's speech: any mention of terrorism. Hizbullah were "ruthless indiscriminate animals", he told reporters. "We must first address the core and the root cause of why these hostilities started in the first place, and who started them ... If there's a ceasefire while this cesspool continues to fester, we'll leave Hizbullah with the capability to do time and time again what they've done this time."" (Oliver Burkeman in New York and Ewen MacAskill "Israel angry, US wary as Annan peace plan calls for ceasefire" http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1825727,00.html July 21, 2006

Jews left Landmines in Lebanon.
Perhaps one of the most sickening examples of the jos’ extraordinary perversity has been its refusal to divulge the whereabouts of nearly a third of a million land mines that it left behind in southern lebanon after it was pushed out of the country by hezbollah. Innocent civilians are still being killed and maimed by these mines. "About the only gift to Lebanon in the UN resolution was the expressed need to provide the UN with remaining Israeli maps of landmines in Lebanon. But Israel has again dropped lethal ordnance all over southern Lebanon." (Robert Fisk ‘This draft shows who is running America's policy... Israel’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1217413.ece August 07 2006); "Hezbollah's immediate objectives were the release of Lebanese and other Arab prisoners held in Israeli jails, return of the occupied Shebaa Farms, and the release by Israel, as previously agreed, of maps showing the location of some 300,000 land mines (now doubtless many more) Israel had left behind in Lebanon, Hijab said." (Thalif Deen ‘Israel's Military Invincibility Dented by Hezbollah’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=9506 August 9, 2006).

Rampant Jewish Paranoia.
The pathologically violent jos attacked lebanese civilians with such ferocity because of its paranoia not because of any realistic threat posed by hezbollah militarily.

Juan Cole.
"The wholesale destruction of all of Lebanon by Israel and the US Pentagon does not make any sense. Why bomb roads, roads, bridges, ports, fuel depots in Sunni and Christian areas that have nothing to do with Shiite Hizbullah in the deep south? And, why was Hizbullah's rocket capability so crucial that it provoked Israel to this orgy of destruction? Most of the rockets were small katyushas with limited range and were highly inaccurate. They were an annoyance in the Occupied Golan Heights, especially the Lebanese-owned Shebaa Farms area. Hizbullah had killed 6 Israeli civilians since 2000. For this you would destroy a whole country? It doesn't make any sense. Moreover, the Lebanese government elected last year was pro-American! Why risk causing it to fall by hitting the whole country so hard?" (Juan Cole ‘One Ring to Rule Them’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 06, 2006).

Ken Silverstein.
Despite all the talk in the press of Israel acting to end the threat of "terrorist" attacks by Hezbollah, the border between the countries had been relatively quiet since the IDF withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000. According to Augustus Richard Norton, a professor of international relations at Boston University and Middle East expert, six Israeli civilians had been killed in the six years prior to the Israeli invasion - one by a falling anti-aircraft round fired at Israeli aircraft violating Lebanese airspace and five in an August 2002 Palestinian operation that was likely aided by Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Norton says, roughly twenty Lebanese civilians were killed either by hostile action or by mines left behind by the IDF. During the same period, 25 Israeli soldiers were killed in Hezbollah attacks; that number includes the eight soldiers killed in the July 12 incident that triggered the invasion. "The task of maintaining stability across this hostile border was neither impossible nor infeasible," Norton wrote in the Boston Globe today. "Indeed, the rules of the game were well understood by both Israel and its Hezbollah foe."" (Ken Silverstein. ‘Israel's March of Folly’ http://www.harpers.org/sb-israels-march-of-folly-1154984970.html August 7, 2006).

The Third War of the Global Jewish Empire.
The jews merciless attack on lebanese civilians is not just another jewish war in the middle east. It is the third war of the global jewish empire. In 1990 the global jewish empire pushed the west into a war against saddam’s invasion of kuwait. In 2003 it pushed america into an invasion of iraq and now it has launched a war against lebanon. All that jews are interested in, is creating war, war, war, and yet more war returning much of the middle east to dust.

It has been suggested that this war has shown the western world’s disinterestedness in reining in the savagery and barbarism of the jos. So-called western civilization, which proclaims it is bound by laws which protect all important personal and political freedoms, has shown no concern over the utter illegality of what the jos is doing. "The ever more morally bankrupt "international community" sees nothing, hears nothing, and says nothing. Don't take my word for it. An aide of the Israeli PM said recently: "We are acting there [in Gaza] in an unprecedented manner; we're firing hundreds of artillery shells, attacking from the air, sea and land and the world remains silent."" (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel's Terrorism’ http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm July 18, 2006); "This is especially because compounding Israel's trademark collective-punishment techniques - bombing bridges and an international airport, killing scores of civilians indiscriminately, turning Beirut into Gaza - shines President George W Bush's imperial indifference, not to mention the international community's. Just as in 1982 - when president Ronald Reagan said it was all right for Ariel Sharon to invade Lebanon - now Bush says it's all right for Israel to bomb Lebanese civilians." (Pepe Escobar ‘Leviathan run amok’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG19Ak02.html July 19, 2006).

This silence is not mere acquiescence in what the jos is doing but slavish obedience to their jewish masters. This war is yet further proof that the jews have conquered the western world and turned its politicians into jewish muppets. "The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the Middle East. It shows that America is, indeed, Israel's puppet, just as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Shame of Being an American’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9381 July 22, 2006).

The jos has always insisted that its enemies were long time supporters of the nazis during the second world war. It has always sought to portray its enemies as if they were hangovers from the age of totalitarianism and that, in effect, the jews are fighting belated wars against the nazis in their various contemporary disguises. However, this does not apply in the case of either hamas or hezbollah. In the 1970s most of lebanon’s rural peasants had no quarrel with the jos. It was only after the jews’ successive invasions of their country and the jews’ prolonged occupation of the country that lebanese peasants banded together to form hezbollah to remove the jewish filth ruining their lives. Hezbollah is thus an enemy of the jews’ own making. It is an enemy formed solely because of its discovery of the truth about the jos’s barbarism beneath its supposedly civilized veneer. The reason for hezbollah’s successes against the jews is simply because whilst the rest of the world is fooled by jewish lies about the civilized nature of the jos, hezbollah knows just how evil jewish leaders and most of its people are and what must be done to curb the global imperialist ambitions of these monsters. Everywhere the jews invade they create enemies because of their merciless, nazi-like, oppression.

The jews are surrounding themselves with walls, security fences, and buffer zones as if they are trying to shut out the rest of the world which finds them all too repulsive. They are locking themselves into their own belligerent, barbaric, psychotic, paranoid world.

The Jews’ Mock Invasion of Lebanon

2006-08-17T15:52:00.000-07:00

Updated August 26th 2006

Jewish ground incursions pushed gradually into lebanon over the five weeks of the war. First the jews took the border, then moved 1.5 miles into lebanon, then 4 miles, then 8 miles. Whilst they boasted about making territorial progress they never succeeded in subduing the areas they’d occupied. Small scale attacks and minor battles continued to rage even on the border. However, as the un security council got closer to an agreement over the terms of a ceasefire, the jewish army suddenly launched what was called ‘a massive invasion’ of southern lebanon involving thirty thousand soldiers. A large number of paratroopers were airlifted to the litany river to secure the area before moving south. "Under cover of intense artillery fire, IDF forces reached the Litani River, which is some 20 to 30 kilometers inside Lebanon, military officials said Saturday evening. As part of the expanded operation, IAF helicopters dropped a large number of Israeli troops deep inside Lebanese territory on Saturday, in the largest operation of its kind since 1973." (Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi ‘24 IDF soldiers killed Saturday in south Lebanon’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749479.html August 13, 2006).

The strategy behind this seemingly audacious military manoeuvre was to cut off hezbollah warriors in southern lebanon preventing them from being resupplied from the north. Once the jewish army was established along the litani it would then begin to move southwards - acting in accordance with the withdrawal required by the ceasefire agreement. Whilst this retreat was taking place the jewish army was supposed to conduct intensive mopping up exercises across the whole of southern lebanon which would put an end to hezbollah’s rocket attacks on the jos. The jewish army would thus use a un resolution, intended to bring peace in lebanon, to wipe out hezbollah. "Israel has nearly tripled the number of forces in Lebanon as part of its expanded ground war, and expects to fight for another week, despite a United Nations cease-fire resolution, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Saturday. Halutz said IDF troops would stay in Lebanon until an international force arrives. "We have almost tripled our forces that are operating in Lebanon," Halutz told reporters. A top IDF official has said that the army will stop its offensive as soon as it is ordered to do so by the political leadership and later it will begin to retrace its steps to uncover any pockets of resistance that may remain in the area." (Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi ‘24 IDF soldiers killed Saturday in south Lebanon’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749479.html August 13, 2006). The prospects of the jews’ army slaughtering even larger numbers of innocent civilians than its air force, seemed an all too frightening possibility.

However, right from the start this ‘massive military manoeuvre’ didn’t proceed as it had been portrayed in the media. Hezbollah was waiting for the jewish army at the litany river and inflicted heavy casualities. "only hours after their leader, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, warned Israel on Saturday that his men were waiting for them on the banks of the Litani river, the Hizbollah sprang their trap, killing more than 20 Israeli soldiers in less than three hours." (Robert Fisk ‘As the 6am ceasefire takes effect... the real war begins’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219037.ece August 14 2006).

The jews’ massive invasion didn’t even stop hezbollah from launching its biggest rocket attack on the jos. "despite the IDF's advance, Hezbollah fired some 250 rockets on Israel, the war's heaviest one-day total to date. The strikes killed one person and wounded dozens." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006). Once again, hezbollah was sending out a message to the world in stark contradiction to the impressions being created by the jewish dominated western media. How was it possible for hezbollah fighters to launch such a large scale attack on the jos when the jews supposedly had southern lebanon under seige? What was going on?

Firstly, it transpired that the jewish army made no real attempt to take control of the litany river to cut off southern lebanon. "IDF sources admitted that in the time remaining until the cease-fire takes effect, the army will only manage to reach the Litani River - which was the goal of the current offensive - in a few places." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006).

Secondly, the number of troops airlifted to the litani was small. "Despite the month of bombing Israel found that its tanks and infantry met fierce resistance from Hezbollah which inflicted heavy losses and kept most of the Israeli ground troops locked in a region close to the border. Only by airlifting troops with helicopters could Israel expand its presence to the region near the Litani River but not in a sufficient numbers and not with sufficient supplies and equipment to have any hope of both protecting themselves from guerrillas and guarding the river to stop returning civilians." (James Marc Leas ‘How Lebanese Civilians Thwarted Israel's War Plans’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leas08252006.html August 25, 2006).

Thirdly, and even more shockingly, it was reported that the jewish army wasn’t going to conduct any mopping up exercises during their withdrawal from lebanon. "The intention is for the forces to move back to a line north of the border with Lebanon within about 10 days, or as soon as the Lebanese Army is ready to begin entering south Lebanon. This means that the IDF will not be conducting searches for Hezbollah fighters or arms caches in the areas that it has captured over the last few days, which the army defined as "the heart of the operational campaign" against Hezbollah." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006).

Finally, and most shockingly of all, was that once the ceasefire came into operation, the jews started withdrawing their forces from southern lebanon almost immediately, "The army is recommending that once the cease-fire takes effect, Israel should begin withdrawing its forces from Lebanon relatively quickly." (Amos Harel and Aluf Benn ‘IDF troops kill Hezbollah man who opened fire at them’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750061.html August 14, 2006); "The Israeli army plans to withdraw from southern Lebanon in as little as seven to 10 days and to hand over some of its forward positions to U.N. troops within 48 hours, Israeli officials said on Tuesday. The expedited timetable reflects growing concerns that Israeli forces will become easy targets for Hizbollah the longer they stay. Uri Bar-Joseph, a professor of international relations at Haifa University, said that with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in place since Monday, Israel's army had little choice. "We cannot clear this area of Hizbollah fighters and waiting another two or three weeks for an international force will mean more Israeli soldiers will die," he said. Israel had initially said its troops would start pulling out only once an expanded UNIFIL and the Lebanese army began deploying. But the Israeli political source said the army wanted to let reservists go home and avoid unnecessary casualties." (Adam Entous ‘Israel plans to leave Lebanon in under 10 days’ http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topnews&storyid=2006-08-15T125122Z_01_L15668635_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L1-RelatedNews-3 August 15, 2006); "We are hoping the last IDF soldiers will cross the border in a matter of days," Maj. Jonathan Davis of the Israel Defense Forces said in an interview near the border. "We want to do it as quickly and swiftly as possible. As soon as UNIFIL and the Lebanese army are ready to assume responsibility in the area, which we hope is as soon as possible, we will leave."" (Edward Cody and Doug Struck ‘Hezbollah Balks At Withdrawal From the South’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/15/AR2006081500322_pf.html August 16, 2006). By wednesday august 16, 2006 a mere two days after the ceasefire came into effect, the jewish army had virtually disappeared from lebanon. "According to LBC satellite news, most Israeli troops have withdrawn from Lebanon, except for some villages right on the border between the two countries." (Juan Cole ‘Hizbullah Rejects Syrian Position’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 17, 2006).

The famed jewish army, for decades deemed to be invincible, had basically scarpered out of lebanon. Reporters were having a hard job finding any evidence of it in lebanon. "Israel's mighty army has already retreated from the neighbouring village of Ghandoutiya after losing 40 men in just over 36 hours of fighting. It has not even managed to penetrate the smashed town of Khiam where the Hizbollah were celebrating yesterday afternoon. In Srifa, I stood with Hizbollah men looking at the empty roads to the south and could see all the way to Israel and the settlement of Mizgav Am on the other side of the frontier. This is not the way the war was supposed to have ended for Israel." (Robert Fisk ‘Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece August 15 2006). Such was the speed of the withdrawal that fisk doubted the size of the invasion force. "Indeed, last night, scarcely any Israeli armour was to be seen inside Lebanon - just one solitary tank could be glimpsed outside Bint Jbeil and the Israelis had retreated even from the "safe" Christian town of Marjayoun. It is now clear that the 30,000-strong Israeli army reported to be racing north to the Litani river never existed. In fact, it is unlikely that there were yesterday more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers left in all of southern Lebanon, although they did become involved in two fire-fights during the morning, hours after the UN-ceasefire went into effect." (Robert Fisk ‘Desert of trapped corpses testifies to Israel's failure’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1219260.ece August 15 2006). Another reporter provided additional evidence, "While Israel claimed to have flooded south Lebanon with 30,000 soldiers in its final offensive, an AP reporter who drove Monday from Tyre to the Israeli border and through several destroyed villages along the frontier saw only one Israeli tank." (Steven R. Hurst ‘Rockets hit Lebanon despite Ceasefire’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel August 15, 2006).

Over the weekend of 12-13 August the jos had launched what threatened to be a horrendously bloody ground war and yet, within minutes of the ceasefire coming into operation in the early hours of Monday morning, the jews stopped fighting and retreated. At the same time, tens of thousands of lebanese citizens started heading back home to the devastation of southern lebanon. They would have made such a decision only if hezbollah had told them it was safe to return. Hezbollah knew the jewish army had been defeated in lebanon and weren’t going to prolong the war. "The very speed at which the refugees started to return, within hours of the start of the ceasefire, is itself important. It is highly unlikely that this was a spontaneous development and much more likely that, at least informally, the Hizbollah leadership encouraged it. From the Hizbollah perspective, this had a dual benefit: it was a palpable demonstration of its own perceived victory, and it conveyed a message of confidence that it considered the region safe for people to return." (Paul Rogers ‘A phoenix from Lebanon’s ruins’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/phoenix_3829.jsp August 17, 2006). (1)

During the five weeks of the war, the jews had realized beyond doubt that they could not remove hezbollah fighters even from the border let alone the whole of southern lebanon. "The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in twenty places to the mortal attacks of the guerillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons." (Uri Avnery ‘The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08172006.html August 17, 2006). If the jews had launched a massive invasion in the way they publicly outlined, their withdrawal southwards would have left them dangerously exposed to hezbollah warriors. They might have ended up suffering an ignominious retreat under fire.

So what was the jewish army actually trying to do by launching this last minute offensive? One commentator believes that hezbollah had been so successful that the jos was forced into a full scale invasion in order to try and win a small victory to cover their abject defeat. "Israel's sudden push to the Litani River is a blatant act of political desperation intended to conceal the humiliating defeat the IDF has suffered at the hands of Hezbollah." (Mike Whitney ‘The Litani Gambit’ http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08142006.html August 14, 2006).

Whitney’s argument fails because there was no mass invasion. Most of the small number of troops who’d been dropped off close to the litany river were airlifted out of the country after short clashes with hezbollah whilst the main bulk of the jewish army, close to the jewish border, took a short walk out of the country. The "full scale invasion" turned out to be just a mock invasion - a public relations’ gimmick designed to provide ehud olmert with the chance to declare he’d won the war because the jewish army had supposedly fought its way to the litany – a victory which would maintain the illusion of the jews’ military invincibility. "If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation (a land offensive) after all - well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical - not to say vile - exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory", as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed. The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the cease-fire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani. This time, when the cease-fire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place." (Uri Avnery ‘The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08172006.html August 17, 2006).

It is a shocking conclusion but the jewish army had been dealt a crushing defeat by hezbollah. "Speaking at a journalists' conference in Damascus on Tuesday, Syrian President Bashar Assad said. "Today after almost five weeks, Israel is struggling to occupy a few hundred meters here and there" in southern Lebanon, while in a 1982 invasion, Beirut was surrounded within seven days, Assad said."" (Joel Greenberg ‘Israel, Hezbollah debate war's success, victor’ http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15281787.htm August 15, 2006).

The jews’ last minute invasion of lebanon was a military catastrophe. Their small scale incursions into lebanon at the start of the war indicated all too clearly that a ground invasion would be a military disaster, "This operation (the land offensive), which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them." (Uri Avnery ‘The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08172006.html August 17, 2006). The only land invasion that was feasible was a gimmick which could be protected from any military disaster by the un ceasefire.

The jews’ war strategy had been a military catastrophe. When they failed to provoke a civil war they had no other strategy to fall back upon to achieve their ever more grandiose war objectives. It needs to be emphasized that the jews spent nearly three years preparing for this war. They knew from their last occupation of lebanon that hezbollah was a formidable fighting force which employed specific military tactics. And yet the jews never employed any special counter-tactics to eradicate hezbollah. Within a month of starting the war they’d run out of contingency plans so the only option left was to scarper to safety. Such was the military catastrophe that it gave the impression that the jews hadn’t made any preparation for the war, which was after all their war of choice, but had attacked lebanon simply out of blind rage because olmert had been angered by nasrullah’s taunts. "The real cause of the latest Lebanon war, wrote (Haaretz columnist Doron) Rosenblum, was not seizure of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbullah, but an earlier TV speech by Hezbullah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, that provoked Israel’s leaders to fury and an act of supreme folly. Nasrallah taunted Israel’s new triumvirate of PM Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, sneering they were "small" compared to Ariel Sharon. "Adding fuel to the fire," wrote Rosenblum, "Nasrallah emphasized the 'small' with his fingers."" (Eric Margolis ‘A Foolhardy War, Unleashed by Fools’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis42.html August 09,2006).

After the war was over, "a senior commander" in the jos’s military put his spin on the events – not surprisingly, blaming jewish politicians for the disaster. "The army asked the government for a five-day ground operation to reach the Litani River and was ready on Monday, Aug. 7, the commander said. "The government asked us to wait because of the negotiations, and we waited Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and most of Friday," he said. Only then, when the negotiations at the United Nations were going against Israel, did Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz order the expanded ground operation, which had only been approved by the Cabinet on Wednesday, Aug. 9." (Stephen Erlanger ‘Israel Committed to Block Arms and Kill Nasrallah’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt399.html August 20, 2006). A five day operation would have been even more of a bloody disaster, and an even bigger defeat, than one lasting two days - but this is the last thing a jewish military leader is willing to admit.

The war against lebanon was also a political disaster for the jos. It pathologically implemented a long term plan for a nasty, vicious bombing campaign against lebanese civilians. Its psychoticly violent attacks shocked substantial sections of the western public. It has consolidated global opinion against the jos and even america. The jos showed itself to be utterly cowardly for its aerial attacks, its deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, and its attempt to resuscitate the lebanese civil war that, a couple of decades earlier, had torn the country apart. It launched a ground invasion only when it knew it could extricate itself from any significant counter-attack because of the ceasefire. The only things the jewish military are good at are killing innocent civilians, murdering women and children, and getting other people to fight their filthy racist wars. "Lebanon, which has never fought Israel and has 40 daily newspapers, 42 colleges and universities and hundreds of different banks, is being destroyed by our planes and cannon and nobody is taking into account the amount of hatred we are sowing. In international public opinion, Israel has been turned into a monster, and that still hasn't been calculated into the debit column of this war. Israel is badly stained, a moral stain that can't be easily and quickly removed. And only we don't want to see it." (Gideon Levy ‘Days of darkness’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744061.html July 31, 2006). The racist jos has shown itself to be not merely beyond contempt but militarily vulnerable. This can only be good for the sake of peace and justice in the middle east and around the rest of the world.

It is still difficult to believe that hezbollah inflicted a catastrophic defeat on the world’s fourth most powerful military. The common view before the war was that, "Israel has all the military muscle it needs to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah. If and when it achieves these goals, an outside interlocutor will have to broker a cease-fire between the belligerents, assist the Lebanese army in disarming Hezbollah ..." (Leon Hadar ‘Let Mideast be EU's problem’ http://www.antiwar.com/ocregister/hadar-mideast.html July 21, 2006). The jewish army scarpered out of lebanon before hezbollah inflicted on it even greater casualties. If the jewish army had not used the ceasefire to defend itself, it would have had to endure another ignominious retreat like the one it suffered in 2000.

Jewish politicians in the jos are currently being condemned by the jewish military for agreeing to a ceasefire supposedly preventing the army from doing what it had to do in lebanon to win the war. The reality is, however, that the ceasefire prevented the jewish army from suffering even greater losses than it did. The ceasefire did not stop the jewish military from winning - it prevented the jewish military from suffering an even more ignominious disaster. After a life time of ignoring un resolutions, the jews suddenly started insisting that everyone obeyed every last detail of resolution 1701 in order to extricate its army from the mess it had gotten itself into. "A striking aspect of the Israeli reaction was that the Olmert administration put aside the country's traditionally deep suspicion of the United Nations by embracing the notion of a UN intervention force. The contempt with which Israel has treated Unifil in the past thirty years makes this switch of attitude little short of astonishing." (Paul Rogers ‘A phoenix from Lebanon’s ruins’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/phoenix_3829.jsp August 17, 2006). The jewish army lays in ruins exactly like much of southern lebanon. The words of ashraf isma’il turned out to be prophetic. "For all of these reasons, Israeli attempts to impose terms on Lebanon, or to redraw the political map of Lebanon, or even to impose a NATO force upon Southern Lebanon, are not militarily feasible nor politically achievable, and if attempted, will prove ultimately unsustainable. As will soon be demonstrated by events on the ground, Israel will not be able to destroy or even disarm Hizballah. Neither will Hamas, Hizballah, Lebanon, or Syria permit Israel or America to dictate terms to them. Consequently, if Israel lingers too long in Southern Lebanon, its presence will be paid for at such a high cost, that it will be forced to withdraw in ignominy, as it has so many times in the past." (Ashraf Isma’il ‘Why Israel is Losing’ http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 25, 2006).

Note (1) James marc leas presents an interesting, and plausible, variant on the explanation presented above. In effect, he believes that lebanese civilians helped bring the war to an end by returning so quickly to southern lebanon against the threats of the jewish army. "The devastating bombing of houses, apartment buildings, power plants, fuel storage, roads, and bridges as far away as Beirut, and the killing of over one thousand civilians, was seen as intentionally directed toward civilians throughout Lebanon. Its purpose appears to have been to demonstrate such a level of ruthlessness as to discourage villagers from returning to their homes in southern Lebanon once the expected UN cease fire was finally imposed. Perhaps it was the inspiring ability of Hezbollah to withstand the bombing and continue to resist. Perhaps tens of thousands of civilians just knew that if they hesitated after the cease fire, like the Palestinians, they would become long term refugees. Whatever the reason, despite the pulverizing bombardment for 33 days, amazingly the civilian population was not so shocked and awed that they were immobilized. By the tens of thousands a flood of Lebanese civilians boldly took to the roads in an enormous act of civil disobedience to the occupying Israeli troops." (James Marc Leas ‘How Lebanese Civilians Thwarted Israel's War Plans’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leas08252006.html August 25, 2006).

Whilst this hypothesis is plausible it is not wholly so. It suggests that hezbollah allowed citizens to return when there was a chance they would be attacked by the jewish army. It suggests the jewish army was still intent on remaining in lebanon protected by the ceasefire – the great fear about the first draft of the un resolution was that it legitimized the jos’s occupation of lebanon. Neither of these implications are true. Hezbollah knew it had defeated the jos militarily and that the jewish army was in full retreat so it was safe for its citizens to return.

Americans carrying out the Orders of their Jewish Masters.

2006-08-16T05:50:00.000-07:00

Modern Day Flat Earthers.
For a couple of millenia it was nigh on impossible to convince local people that the Earth revolved around the sun given that everyday their senses were telling them that the sun was clearly revolving around the Earth. Today’s flat Earthers’ are those who look upon the reality of America’s hyper-power military status and then conclude that this military is being used to create an American empire - despite the vast masses of evidence point in the opposite direction. The american military is being used to create a global Jewish empire. America may have a military hyper-power but american jews have a "stranglehold" over congress and bush and thus, in effect, control that military. Bush’s philosophy, strategies, policies, and propaganda, are all jewish.

Many flat Earth commentators have pointed out that america’s propaganda is exactly the same as that coming from the jos. But, they do not seem to believe there is anything amiss or unusual about this even though america should have its own national, and geostrategic, interests in the middle east that are entirely different from those of the jos. How can two countries on opposite sides of the Earth have exactly the same national, geostrategic, interests?

Sharat G. Lin.
"The Bush administration, Congress, and the press repeatedly echo the Israeli government’s position that the current warfare between Israel versus Palestinians and Lebanese is a consequence of the "kidnapping" of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas-led militants on June 25, 2006 and the "abduction" of two more Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006." (Sharat G. Lin ‘Chronology of the Latest Crisis in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lin07252006.html July 25, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
The mainstream US and European media work as nothing but press offices of Israel's Foreign Ministry." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak02.html July 26, 2006).

Robert Fisk.
"According to US correspondents accompanying Ms Rice on her visit to the Middle East, she is proposing the intervention of a Nato-led force along the Lebanese-Israeli border for between 60 and 90 days to assure that a ceasefire exists, the deployment of an enlarged Nato force throughout Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and then the retraining of the Lebanese army before its own deployment to the border. This plan - which, like all American proposals on Lebanon, is exactly the same as Israel's demands - carries the same depth of conceit as that of the Israeli consul general in New York, who said last week that "most Lebanese appreciate what we are doing"." (Robert Fisk ‘Smoke signals from the battle of Bint Jbeil send a warning to Israel’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14223.htm July 27, 2006).

The Jews’ ‘Clean Break’ is a Modern ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion’.
The bush administration’s policies in the middle east all derive from the strategy outlined in paper called ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’. The contributors to this paper consisted primarily of jews in america such as richard perle, david and meyrav wurmser, and douglas feith. It was submitted to the jos’s prime minister of the time, binyamin netanyahu, in an attempt to change the policies of the jos away from peace with the palestinians. Some of these contributors had worked for previous american administrations whilst others would, in the future, become a part of bush’s administrations. This situation is remarkable: a group of american politicians writing position papers for a foreign government in an attempt to make that government independent of american power so that it could pursue a far more belligerent foreign policy in the middle east that would undermine american interests in the region. It would be difficult to describe this situation without involving the word traitorous. Even the contributors realized that what they were doing might be seen to be traitorous to america so the following year they formed a new organization called ‘project for a new american century’ and produced a new position paper in which they recommended that america should pursue the same policies they’d just recommended to the jos. In other words, all they did was to suggest that america would be better off if it implemented the policies that they’d designed to maximize the interests of another government i.e. the jos.

The philosophy, strategy, policies and propaganda of the bush administration and the rest of the western world towards the middle east come directly from the jos or its agent in america, the jewish lobby. Everything that western leaders say is first spoken by the jos or its agents in america. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is the so-called war on terrorism. Since 1967, the jos had been fighting what it defined as a war against terrorism. Since the turn of the millenium, the jews were able to get the bush administration to adopt this policy as its own so that instead of americans relentlessly pursuing osama bin laden, they’ve been attacking the enemies of the jos who pose no threat to america. The so-called war on terror is a jewish policy that the jewish lobby in america and the jewish dominated media imported into america and foisted upon a gullible president. Bush has become an ever increasing jewish muppet. He simply does everything the jews want him to do irrespective of the harm it is doing to american interests.

The global jewish empire controls the american congress and the bush administration and gets americans to do all their dirty work for them such as the proxy zionist invasion of iraq which has resulted in a major calamity for the american military. The jos and the jews in america are not in the least bit bothered by the shame they are imposing on america for doing their dirty work in iraq. After the pentagon and new york bombings the whole world was sympathetic to the plight of the americans. But, as a consequence of the americans implementing the foreign policies of the racist jos, the whole world detests americans for what it is doing around the world. The americans experience no shame about their servility to the jos, "What you are witnessing is a disaster in the making – not only for Lebanon, which will require 50 years to recover, but for the United States, which stands exposed once again as a prejudiced hypocrite and an accessory to Israel's war crimes." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9385 July 22, 2006). Americans seem completely oblivious to the fact that the world despises them for implementing the jos’s policies. In the lebanon, the jews are using fighter jets paid for by American taxpayers to drop bombs that have also been paid for by american taxpayers to bomb innocent lebanese people – and the fuel used inthese fighter planes has also been paid for by america. How is it that the jews have succeeded in becoming so parasitic on america that they are able to get americans to pay for all the death and destruction they are wreaking. And how is it that americans simply do not care how much they are reviled around the world for contributing to the jos’s war crimes in the lebanon?

For the first two weeks of the jews’ onslaught against innocent lebanese civilians western leaders, and a few arab leaders, dismissed the need for a ceasefire in order to allow the jews time to commit their war crimes. When it became obvious that the war wasn’t going the way the jews thought it would, several jewish-financed, world leaders such as tony blair began advocating the need for an international force to be set up in lebanon - not to effect a ceasefire, but to do the job the jos couldn’t do. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wants a ``robust'' international military force to try to oust Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon, as she prepares to leave on a diplomatic mission to the region next week." (Rice Seeks `Robust' Lebanon Force to Oust Hezbollah’ (Update2) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFfD.hAYqLU4&refer=home July 21, 2006). It is not in the least bit surprising that such a force would have been paid for by the international community. The international community seems willing to pay any price for the defence of the jewish racist state. If it has been implemented, this international force would have suffered many casualties. But to the jos that’s alright because at least these dimwits would have sacrificed their lives for the greater good of the racist jos and their jewish masters.

‘A Clean Break’ is basically an updated version of ‘The Elders of the Protocols of Zion’. In it the global jewish elite outlines the policies which it expects its non-jewish slaves in american politics to implement - policies that are solely beneficial to the jos. There is no such thing as an american empire. The global jewish empire rules america and much of the rest of the western world.

The following commentators believe that ‘A Clean Break’ is the primary document shaping the bush administration’s foreign policies. Whilst they admit that it was written by jews specifically for the jos in the hope of promoting the jos’s national interests, they simply will not draw the logical conclusion that extreme fundamentalist rabbis have taken over congress and the white house. They prefer to live on a flat Earth.

Muriel Mirak-Weissbach.
"To understand the why of the assassination - although the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclear - one must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization."

"The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."" (Muriel Mirak-Weissbach ‘Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break'?’ Executive Intelligence Review February 25, 2005).

Naseer H. Aruri.
"Moreover, with US Middle East policy now consigned to the likes of David Wurmser, Edward Feit, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and other Sharon operatives in the think tanks, media and the administration, Syria's regional role will not be seen in the same context employed by Bush I and Baker. It should be recalled that David Wurmser helped draft a document entitled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role?" in 2000, which called for a confrontation with Syria, which it accused of developing "weapons of mass destruction". According to Charles Glass (‘Bashar Assad: The Syrian Sphinx,’ Independent, February 19, 2005) "Washington's neoconservatives were sharpening their knives for Syria long before they assumed office courtesy of George Bush. Many of them have already been advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu during his brief tenure as prime minister of Israel." Glass adds: "the American advisers, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, counseled Israel in 1996 that it can shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria,.an effort that can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."" (Naseer H. Aruri ‘Remapping the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/aruri02222005.html February 22, 2005).

Ray McGovern.
"The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neoconservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the Jan. 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz – Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (no.3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9460 August 2, 2006).
(Noted

Although mcgovern states that some of the jewish neocons who wrote a Clean Break are in the bush administration and are thus helping to implement these policies and that congress is entirely dominated by jews and that the american media is almost entirely dominated by jews are are giving the bush’s clean break policies a huge cheer of approval the redoubtable mr mcgovern argues that america and the jos are just joined at the hip rather than bush being the jews’ puppy dog, "Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has U.S. stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing U.S. setback from which it will take decades to recover." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=9460 August 2, 2006).

Sidney Blumenthal.
"In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration - Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide."

""A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."

"Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the "clean break" strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians. In the 1998 Wye River accords, concluded through the personal involvement of President Clinton and a dying King Hussein, the Palestinians agreed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from a portion of the occupied West Bank. Further negotiations, conducted by his successor Ehud Barak, that nearly settled the conflict ended in dramatic failure, but potentially set the stage for new ones."

"At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocons' next war’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon027.html August 03, 2006).

Daniel Levy.
"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The "clean break" was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of "Hashemite control in Iraq." The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush." (Daniel Levy ‘Ending the neoconservative nightmare’ http://www.haaretz.com//hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=746312 August 04, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"I note that "mainstream" writers, such as Sidney Blumenthal, are now acknowledging the "Clean Break" plan, put together in 1996 by several key players in the Bush administration, which called for the elimination of Iraq as a prelude to going after Syria, and this is key to understanding Israel's actions. The important thing to remember about this scenario is that it was put together not for American policymakers, but for the benefit of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and that it summed up the program of a powerful faction, not only within Israel but also within the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Its thesis, embraced by American neoconservatives as well as Israeli hawks, was that Israel needed to make a "clean break" with the peace process, which was undermining the foundations of the Jewish state. It needed to break out of its passivity and make a new start characterized by a policy of relentless aggression, and there was only one direction it could go, at least initially: north, into Lebanon." (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9542 August 16, 2006).

William Rivers Pitt.
"Over the last several weeks, an old White Paper found new life in the shattered ruins of Lebanon's infrastructure. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper was masterminded by three neo-con hawks who, in the fullness of time, became powerful members of the Bush administration: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. The three were working for a pro-Israel think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies when the paper was first drafted.

"A Clean Break" was originally written for the benefit of Benjamin Netanyahu after he rose to the position of Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. This, in and of itself, was unique; it is rare indeed to have a trio of American foreign policy specialists crafting national security policy for a foreign power. Those who have seen the hand of the Israeli Likud Party guiding American foreign policy over the last several years base their premise, to no small degree, upon the involvement of these three men in Israeli affairs before their ascendancy in American government. The arguments contained in this document eventually became the basis for the now-infamous White Paper by the Project for the New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," which was authored in 2000.

Perle, Feith and Wurmser's vision for a new Israel centered around the re-invigoration of the discredited policy of pre-emption, i.e., attacking a perceived foe based on whatever premise can be found in order to show strength in the region and intimidate local governments into compliance. "Israel's new agenda," read the paper, "can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone, and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response."

Beyond reviving pre-emption, the paper argued that Israel's wisest course of action involved a military invasion of Lebanon, followed by attacks upon Syria and Iran. "Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil," read the paper. "An effective approach, and one with which American[s] can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

In order for pre-emption to be successful, according to the paper, a premise for attack must be established. It did not matter if the premise was based upon actual facts or genuine threat. It only needed to be plausible enough to rally the support of the American people. "A Clean Break" advocated attacking Lebanon and Syria based upon the premise that Syria is involved with laundering drug money and counterfeiting. The paper likewise instructed Netanyahu to draw the world's attention to Syria's WMD stockpiles.

Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to ignore the advice offered in "A Clean Break," and the paper was shelved. After George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office, however, the paper was given new life. Richard Perle became chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith became Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser became a senior State Department official before becoming Middle East Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

It became clear during the first national security meeting of the Bush administration, in late January 2001, that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of primary importance. The policy initiatives espoused in "A Clean Break" were dusted off and re-introduced. Pre-emption became the watchword for a new American foreign policy, and the establishment of a premise for the invasion of Iraq became a priority.

"A Clean Break" required little redacting to become central to American foreign policy regarding Iraq. "Israel can shape its strategic environment," read the original paper, "in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

The premise for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein came eight months later with the attacks of September 11. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein loathed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda - feelings that were entirely mutual - and had no hand in those attacks, 9/11 became the established premise for attack. Dire warnings of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles were spread far and wide, thanks to a concerted administration propaganda campaign and the help of a few well-placed members of the mainstream news media." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Everything Old Is New’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081506A.shtml August 15 2006).

The Cedar Revolution War

2006-08-13T03:43:00.000-07:00

Updated August 26, 2006

The Jews’ Refusal to attack Syria.
For the last decade or so, the jews-only state in palestine (jos), the jewish lobby in america, the jewish dominated media in america, jewish commentators and academics in america, and jewish politicians within successive administrations, have been calling for america to attack both syria and iran for sponsoring terrorism against the jos. As soon as the jos launched its psychotic, pre-planned, unprovoked, attacks on lebanese civilians and infrastructure, many of these same jews called upon the jos to widen the war by attacking syria. They knew that syria had an alliance with iran which would bring it into the war and that this would then automatically trigger the entry of america. However, to the great surprise of many, the jos has avoided triggering off a wider war. Indeed, it has gone out of its way to publicly emphasize that it will not attack syria. "Even as Israeli officials repeatedly accuse Damascus of supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, Jerusalem insists it has no intentions of attacking Syria." (Ori Nir ‘U.S. Ripped For Inaction On Israeli, Syrian Front’ http://www.forward.com/articles/8221 August 4, 2006). Elements within the jos have even called the idea "nuts". "One Israeli source said Bush’s interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush’s hard-line strategy against Islamic militants." (Robert Parry ‘Bush wants Wider War’ http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/080206.html August 03, 2006).

What this implies is that the jos has never seriously considered attacking either syria or iran because the losses suffered by the jos would be too great. This has two implications. One referring to the past - specifically the cedar revolution – and the other to the future – that the jos wants america to attack syria and iran on its behalf but will not do so itself because it couldn’t endure the massive damage it would suffer.

The primary reason for the jos’s barbaric attack on lebanese civilians and infrastructure was to trigger a civil war against hezbollah thereby considerably reducing military losses during a ground invasion. However, this strategy failed. There are a number of reasons for this failure.

Firstly, because hasan nasrullah has always promoted lebanese nationalism and has recently supported the development of lebanese democracy. Non-shiite lebanese thus see hezbollah as a legitimate part of lebanese society and politics by, "Part of Nasrullah's success was that while always appealing to the Shi'ites, he never mentioned pan-Shi'ite loyalties, and always claimed to be speaking for Lebanon. This was not the case with Musa al-Sadr, who rose to power in the 1960s and 1970s through emphasis on Shi'ite nationalism as part of the greater Lebanese nationalism. This different approach gave Nasrullah a fairly large following among the Sunnis of Lebanon as well. Like Sadr, however, he fully understood the multitude of Lebanon's confessional system, never once calling for an Islamic state in Lebanon, and always proclaiming to be a firm believer in the right of all Lebanese, regardless of religion, to live in harmony." (Sami Moubayed ‘Lebanon guided by the Nasrullah factor’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB26Ak03.html February 26, 2005).

Secondly, because many lebanese realized the jos was attacking lebanon and not merely hezbollah. "When Israeli bombs start landing in Christian Lebanon, the Christians did not blame Hezbollah. If this was a war on Hezbollah, they reasoned, then why were they being attacked? Attacking them meant that this was a war on Lebanon - all of Lebanon, not only the Shi'ites and Hezbollah." (Sami Moubayed ‘Hezbollah banks on home-ground advantage’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak01.html July 26, 2006).

Thirdly, because after their experience of the 1975-1990 civil war many lebanese preferred to do battle with the jos rather than with other their own people. "On 31 July 2006, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said: ‘This is a unique opportunity to change the rules in Lebanon.’ Yet Israel itself is playing by the same old unsuccessful rules. It is ordering Lebanon to disarm Hizbullah or face destruction, just as in 1975 it demanded the dismantling of the PLO. Then, many Lebanese fought the PLO and destroyed the country from within. Now, they reason, better war than another civil war: better that the Israelis kill us than that we kill ourselves. What else can Israel do to them?" (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books Vol. 28 No. 16 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n16/print/glas01_.html August 17, 2006).

Finally, and most importantly, as a result of the jews’ barbaric attacks on lebanese civilians, the lebanese people suddenly realized that the cedar revolution in which they placed such great hopes for a better, more civilized, future had been a hoax perpetrated on them by the jos and america. Both the jos and american neocons had been critically involved in financing, organizing, and orchestrating, the cedar revolution. America's jewish ambassador to lebanon was at the forefront of these efforts. Trish schuh provides a detailed account of the jews who set up and financed astroturf organizations to promote democracy in lebanon. At the time, a substantial section of the lebanese people had welcomed the support of both the jos and america for helping to bring democracy to their country. But, as a result of what these countries have now done to lebanon most lebanese realize that the jos and america were not interested in establishing democracy in lebanon but solely in pushing syria out of lebanon in order to enable the jos to attack hezbollah as soon as the opportunity arose. "But from Beirut to Damascus, the "Arab Spring" was a neocon forgery designed to destabilize the Levant and redraw the map of the middle east." (Trish Schuh ‘Faking the Case Against Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/schuh11182005.html November 18, 2005).

From the jos’s perspective, the logic of the situation is clear. The jos would not attack hezbollah whilst the syrian military was encamped in lebanon for fear of triggering a war not only with hezbollah but with syria. However, if the jews could cajole the lebanese into removing syria then they would be free to attack hezbollah.

The Hoax of the Cedar Revolution.
During the cedar revolution, hezbollah had warned the lebanese people that lebanon needed syrian troops to protect it from the pathological, war-mongering loonies in the jos but the non-shiite sectors of society refused to take heed. "Its popularity (hezbollah) had been low since last year, when it alone refused to demand the evacuation of the Syrian army after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Hizbullah sensed that Washington was orchestrating the anti-Syrian campaign for its own – rather than Lebanon’s – benefit." (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books August 03.2006). Many lebanese believed that because america was encouraging and helping them to establish democracy then it would do everything it could to protect that democracy. In other words, that america would become the country’s protector as syria had been in the past. Politically, this was grossly naïve. It ignored the reality that america is ruled by jewish neocons who couldn't care anything about democracy, or justice, in lebanon because all they wanted was for the jos to attack hezbollah.

The jos had been preparing an invasion of lebanon for many years. "Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hezbollah militants is unfolding according to a plan finalized more than a year ago. In the years since Israel ended its military occupation of southern Lebanon, it watched warily as Hezbollah built up its military presence in the region. When Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last week, the Israeli military was ready to react almost instantly. "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared," said Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. "In a sense, the preparation began in May 2000, immediately after the Israeli withdrawal, when it became clear the international community was not going to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling missiles and attacking Israel. By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."" (Matthew Kalman ‘Israel set war plan more than a year ago’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP July 21, 2006); "Seymour Hersh says that sources knowledgeable about Israeli and Bush administration planning maintain that the Israelis laid out last spring in Washington and gained administration support for a plan for a bombing campaign against Hizbullah in Lebanon based on the Kosovo campaign. Moreover, the exercise was intended as a demonstration project and a preparation for a Bush administration war on Iran. The campaign against Hezbollah would have two major benefits. It would remove Hezbollah's rocket capability, which was a form of deterrence against Israeli or American bombing of Iran. And, what Israel learned from attacking Hezbollah would be useful in formulating tactics in the American assault on Iran." (Juan Cole ‘Hersh: Israeli Campaign Dress Rehearsal for War on Iran’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 14, 2006). In other words, whilst the jos and america’s jewish neocons were promoting the cedar revolution they were also secretly planning to attack lebanon at the most convenient moment using an aerial blitzkreig to devastate the country. Ran hacohen makes a similar observation. At the time when the un's draft resolution on lebanon was being discussed he argued, "Lebanon will unite behind Hezbollah as the only effective force fighting its partition. Syria will support Hezbollah, being doubly humiliated both by the enduring Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and by being kicked out of Lebanon just in order to let Israel reoccupy it." (Ha'aretz, Aug. 7, 2006)." (Ran HaCohen `The End of Lebanon? http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=9496 August 8, 2006).

When the jos’s bombs started falling on lebanese civilians, it suddenly dawned on the pro-cedar, astroturf, colour-coded, revolutionaries that they’d been duped into serving jewish goals. The words of warning issued by hassan nasrullah during this pseudo-revolution must have started ringing in their ears. Nasrullah had been proved right yet again. The jews in america and the jos had been revealed to be contemptible liars and manipulators who cared nothing whatsoever about the lebanese people after all that they had promised to do for lebanon. As a consequence, today it is a little difficult to see how anyone in lebanon could trust either the americans or the jews. It is a shame that so many of them did not join hezbollah in attempting to push the jewish racists out of their country.

At present the jews' blitzkreig against the lebanese people is a war without a commonly recognized name. The most appropriate name for this war could be the ‘cedar revolution’ war or just simply `the cedar war' as a reminder for future generations that the jews and their american muppets had used democracy as a means for unleashing a barbaric war.

The Jews’ Cowardly Wars.
For the first month of their attack on lebanon, the jews fought a cowardly war. From a position of virtually complete safety, they bombarded the lebanese people whilst being unwilling to risk their own lives in a ground invasion. But the jews were doubly cowardly because their aerial assault had been intended to provoke a civil war in lebanon. In other words, they wanted to get other people to fight their wars for them. The jews had used the same tactic against the palestinians. "In Gaza, Israel has been engineering a debilitating struggle for power between Fatah and Hamas, while in Lebanon whatever hollow shell of national unity has existed till now is in danger of cracking under the strain of the Israeli onslaught." (Jonathan Cook ‘Israel's Disproportionate Violence No Surprise’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9390 July 22, 2006). It should also not be forgotten that the jews had also got their dumb american serfs to do their dirty work for them by invading iraq.

During the cedar war, the jews made strenuous efforts to promote a un resolution on lebanon which would establish an international peace keeping force in lebanon which would not merely patrol a buffer zone between the racist jos and hezbollah but would act as a jewish protection agency to disarm hezbollah. In other words, it is yet another jewish ploy to get other countries to do the fighting, and dying, for the promotion of jewish supremacism. The international force will play the same role as the south lebanon army after the jews’ 1982 invasion. "To reduce the burden on its own forces, the Israelis created a species of Milice in the form of the locally recruited South Lebanon Army – first under Major Saad Haddad, who had broken from the Lebanese army in 1976 with a few hundred men, and later under General Antoine Lahad. Both were Christians, and their troops – armed, trained, fed and clothed by Israel – were mainly Shia Muslims from the south. About a third of the force, which grew to almost 10,000, were Christians. Some joined because they resented the Palestinians’ armed presence in south Lebanon. Others enlisted because they needed the money: the region has always been Lebanon’s poorest. The SLA had a reputation for cruelty, confirmed when its torture chambers at Khiam were opened after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, and for a high rate of desertions. As Israel pulled back from Beirut, the high-water mark reached during its 1982 invasion, its share of Lebanon contracted further and further. Having seized 3560 square kilometres, about a third of the country, containing around 800 towns and villages, Israel found itself in 1985 with only 500 square kilometres and 61 villages, mostly deserted. Hizbullah, which led the resistance that had forced the Israelis to abandon most of their conquest, demanded the unconditional return of all Lebanese territory. Its attacks intensified, resulting in a loss of IDF soldiers that became unpalatable to most Israelis. The Israeli army placed the SLA between itself and Hizbullah so that it could pay the price that Israel had decided it could not afford." (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books Vol. 28 No. 16 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n16/print/glas01_.html August 17, 2006).

Inciting a War against Syria.
The final piece of evidence about the jews’ desire to get others to do their dirty work for them is their refusal to attack syria. They want americans to suffer the military, economic, and personnel, losses rather than themselves. Over the last few years they have been constantly agitating for a war against both syria and iran. It seemed as if they were intent on launching a regional war. But, only now has it suddenly become apparent that their warmongering is solely to incite america into such a war whilst they sit on the sidelines reaping the political and military benefits.

Jews Running the UN Security Council: Another Milestone in the Continuing Rise of the Global Jewish Empire.

2006-08-10T05:30:00.000-07:00

Updated August 26, 2006

The Draft UN Resolution on Lebanon.
Putting aside the question of who started the cedar revolution war in lebanon (1), the jews’ psychotic blitz on lebanese civilians and infrastructure was welcomed by both the bush administration and a great many americans whose opinions have been shaped by the country’s jewish dominated media. In europe, most governments refused to demand an immediate ceasefire - including the germans "who shocked the world this week by opposing the call for a cease-fire." (Uri Avnery ‘Knife in the Back’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html August 3, 2006). Some, like the blair government were complicit in the slaughter by facilitating the transfer of munitions from america to the jews-only state in palestine (jos). However significant sections of public opinion in europe, not merely europe’s substantial moslem minority, were outraged by the brutality and callousness of what the jews were doing. European leaders thus found themselves suffering from considerable political embarrassment over their support for the jos’s blatant pyscho-barbarism.

This situation was not politically tenable. European governments could not continue to condone the jos’s onslaught without suffering increasing public approbation and eventual electoral punishment. Something had to be done. Blair came up with the solution: a united nations’ peacekeeping force in lebanon and a cessation of hostilities. This idea was welcomed by other european governments. It was even welcomed by the jewish states in palestine and america when it was realized that a un resolution could be rigged entirely in the jos’s favour. A cessation of hostilities would legitimize the jews’ occupation of lebanon and make it illegal for hezbollah to resist the occupiers. Perfect. Even better, given that it would be a virtual certainty that hezbollah would end up breaking the cessation of violence, western governments could then denounce hezbollah not merely for being ‘terrorists’ but for breaking international law. In one deft, carefully worded, resolution the european public’s opprobrium towards their governments could be shifted onto hezbollah for breaking a un resolution – just as saddam had been pushed into similar breaches of un resolutions rigged by the jews and just like the current predicament being faced by syria and iran. The icing on the cake was that hezbollah’s breaches of the jewish peace would enable the un to introduce sanctions against lebanon along the lines of those imposed against iraq after the first gulf war.

Tony blair’s seemingly compassionate response to public demands for a ceasefire was nothing more than a public relations’ exercise. He gave the public exactly what it wanted - but only when the resolution achieved the exact opposite of what the public had hoped for. "Hens may believe the rooster who tells them his cock-a-doodle-doo brings the sunrise, and there may be a few gullible Labour MPs who think Tony Blair’s dash to "persuade" George W. Bush to pressure Israel has not been carefully choreographed by the Americans and the Israelis — but the rest of Britain will be harder to persuade." (Matthew Parris ‘How mad for Britain to be the US poodle: the neocons will fade away’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2289986,00.html July 29, 2006).

The jewish dominated media in the western world presented the discussions between france and america about the wording of the resolution as if the un was dealing even-handedly with the issue, arbitrating justly between the two sides in the conflict. It reported that tough negotiations were being carried out between the two countries as if france was representing the interests of lebanon and the arab world so that eventually a fair agreement would be reached. What the jewish dominated western media did not mention was that a third party was involved in the discussions - the jos. ‘If there were any remaining illusions about the purpose of Israel's war against Lebanon, the draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a "cessation of major hostilities" published at the weekend should finally dispel them. This entirely one-sided document was drafted, the Hebrew-language media have reported, with close Israeli involvement. The top adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked through the resolution with the US and French teams, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry had its man alongside John Bolton [yet another of Israel's men, Eds ] at the UN building in New York." (Jonathan Cook ‘Goliath Pretending to be David’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08072006.html August 7, 2006). The jews refer to bolton as "our man at the un." (2).

Neither hezbollah, the lebanese government, nor representatives from the arab world, were asked to participate in drawing up the peace agreement over lebanon. That the jos was allowed to participate was bad enough but that it was the only side to the dispute to do so was shocking. The jews were determining the nature of the peace as they determined the nature of the war. In effect, they were determining what should, and should not, go into a un resolution. It’s possible that aipac had a hand in writing the resolution and then sent it to the un to be rubber stamped. In other words, the jews’ reward for their merciless aerial bombing of lebanese civilians, and their lebensraum against southern lebanon, was to write their own un resolution. No un reward for state terrorism then!

Reactions to the Draft UN Resolution.
Once the draft un resolution was published it was immediately condemned by hezbollah, the lebanese government, and the arab world. "The first draft of the US-French UNSC resolution looked very much like a "declaration of surrender" of the Arab side, as a discerning Hizbullah official commented. "If this is what they're suggesting after Israel lost the military confrontation, what would they have proposed if Israel had won?" asked the witty speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, echoing a widely held view among Arab and international observers alike." (Omar Barghouti ‘Lessons for Palestine from Lebanon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouti08122006.html August 12/13, 2006).

It was transparent that all the expectations placed on france to protect the interests of lebanon and the middle east had been misplaced because it had basically capitulated to the jos. "A close analysis of the American-French draft - the fingerprints of John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, were almost smudging the paragraphs - showed just who is running Washington's Middle East policy: Israel. And one wondered how even Tony Blair would want to associate himself with this nonsense." (Robert Fisk ‘This draft shows who is running America's policy... Israel’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1217413.ece August 07 2006). There are times when fisk can be a real twit such as when he denounces hezbollah for triggering off the jews’ disproportionate attack on lebanon! Here is another example. Blair was not in the least bit embarrassed by the un resolution. Just before he went on holiday he was pleading for it to be implemented as the only way to peace. Well, what could anyone expect when the labour party’s chief fundraiser is a jew whose own million pound donation to the party was rewarded with a knighthood and an appointment as blair’s personal envoy to the middle east. Blair was wholly convinced that a fair and equitable solution to the lebanese crisis was one in which hezbollah ws disarmed and disbanded and the jos stays in lebanon to help bring peace and security. He buys completely into the jos’s perspective – or rather, was bought off by it. He has increasingly started to parade his role as a shabbt goy as a badge of honour – primarily because he has been offered a lucrative post in the rabid zionist, rupert murdoch’s zionist empire after he finally leaces office. (3) As for the questions of lebanese prisoners, the shabaa farms area, the golan heights, the jews’ landmines in lebanon, and the cost of rebuilding lebanon, nothing of this mattered to him at all.

Ran hacohen carried out a full body dissection of the corpse, "The UN Security Council resolution draft on Lebanon reflects a new stage of Western colonialism in the Middle East, and perhaps a historic precedent: for the first time, the UN Security Council – should the resolution draft be endorsed – breaches the fundamental principle of the right of people under occupation to resist, and in fact legitimizes the violent partition of the sovereign state of Lebanon." (Ran HaCohen ‘The End of Lebanon?’ http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=9496 August 8, 2006). The draft un resolution basically legitimized the jews’ ethnic cleansing of southern lebanon and their crimes against humanity in lebanon. Raimondo likened the resolution to the munich agreement, "One hopes the historical parallels will end there, but I fear not: just as the German push for Lebensraum ended in a world war, so an apparent campaign to give Israel a bit of elbow room may result in yet another global conflagration. The UN resolution, then, amounts to a new Munich agreement, which – if history teaches us anything – will serve to embolden the Israelis to go on the offensive against Syria, and, perhaps, Iran." (Justin Raimondo ‘The New Munich’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9493 August 7, 2006).

So, in a matter of a few months the jos, in co-operation with its american colony, had forced the russians and the chinese to pass a security council resolution ordering iran to stop any further nuclear research even though iran has an inalienable right under international law to carry out such research. "Nevertheless, by falsely charging that (a) Iran had been in noncompliance with the NPT and its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, and that (b) Iran had "consistently and brazenly defied the international community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Bolton got the Security Council to pass Resolution 1696, which Bolton falsely claimed required Iran to comply with all the "requirements" listed in the Iranian IAEA dossier as well as requiring all UN Member states "to prevent the transfer of resources to Iran's nuclear and missile programs."" (Gordon Prather ‘Bolton Gets Sandbagged?’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=9525 August 12, 2006).

It then launched a pre-planned act of barbarism against lebanon which was supported by western governments even though it was condemned by large sections of western societies. It forced the indian government to stop broadcasting arabic channels in india showing the grim realities of the lebanese conflict. (4) Just to point out the obvious: the jos has a population of six million whereas the population of india is over a billion. It then steamrollered the french to get a un resolution on lebanon which gave it everything it asked for. More and more governments around the world are coming to accept and even admire jewish racism and the depths of its barbarism. It is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone but the worst pro-semitic bigots to avoid the conclusion that jews rule the world.

UN Resolution 1701.
After the lebanese and arab governments were allowed to comment on the draft resolution, fundamental changes were made to the resolution. "The draft of the text which arrived from Lebanon on Friday is a significantly altered version of Thursday's draft." (Aluf Benn, Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi ‘PMO: Offensive to continue; Cabinet to vote Sunday on UN truce deal’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749566.html August 12, 2006); "Take a look at Resolution 1701: it is quite a lengthy document, which goes well beyond the call for a cease-fire and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive solution to the current crisis in the Middle East – one in which Israel gains not an inch. If implemented – and that, of course, is the key – it endorses the seven-point program of the Lebanese government, first put forward at the international conference of July 26. This means a mutual exchange of prisoners – not only the two Israeli soldiers, but the many Lebanese still being held by the Israelis – and the return of the disputed Shebaa Farms enclave to Lebanon. Resolution 1701 also harkens back to the 1989 Taif Agreement, brokered by the Arab League, that put the West's imprimatur on the Syrian "occupation," ending the Lebanese civil war." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel, Defeated’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9533 August 14, 2006).

It is believed these changes were introduced to reflect hezbollah’s military victories against the jos. "Only a few days after that draft was first made public the text underwent dramatic changes to the extent that its final version was seen by many, with some embellishment, as a declaration of Hizbullah's victory over Israel. What on earth could have compelled America's most undiplomatic, arrogant and viceroy-ish ambassador to the UN to make such an uncharacteristic U-turn? While Arab officials on the delegation that negotiated the outcome are likely to take credit for their claimed deftness and newly discovered diplomatic skill, the truth is that this relative triumph was created on the ground in South Lebanon, from Bint Jbail to Aita ash-Shaab and Khiyam, where the able Lebanese resistance inflicted upon the Israeli invading forces in less than a week massive losses including tens of destroyed or impaired fortified tanks and other armored vehicles, a badly damaged state-of-the-art military vessel and dozens of dead soldiers, quite a few among them from the army's elite units. The radical shift of the balance on the ground in Hizbullah's favor, the political steadfastness in Beirut and the resulting loss of direction and embarrassing wobbling among Israel's political and military leaders together painted a picture of what can be accurately perceived as the very first Arab military victory over Israel's much feared, "unbeatable" army." (Omar Barghouti ‘Lessons for Palestine from Lebanon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouti08122006.html August 12 / 13, 2006).

The resolution was passed unanimously on friday august 11, 2006. The jews treated the un resolution as a green light to launch a mock ground offensive to provide them with some military achievements in what had otherwise been for them a disastrous war. "The Israeli army said on Saturday it had started broadening its ground offensive in south Lebanon and its forces were pushing toward the Litani river. Troops were carrying out orders issued by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, the army said after the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to the month-old war between Israel and Hizbollah." (Israeli Troops push Towards Litani River’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060812/wl_nm/mideast_offensive_dc_2 August 12, 2006). As soon as the ceasefire deadline passed, the jewish military scarpered from lebanon as quickly as it could.

The Western World Rushing to the Military Aid of the Jos: The Christian Crusader Crescent in the Middle East.
In 1948 the jos was established through terrorism and lebensraum – now known as ethnic cleansing. It has remained a jews-only racist state. It is a kleptomaniac state which has continually stolen land from palestinians, eqyptians, jordanians, syrians, and the lebanese. When people have resisted jewish occupation and tried to regain the land stolen from them, the jews denounced them as terrorists. No civilized person could possibly support jewish occupation, theft/colonialism, and racism. Only those who have become jewish slaves could believe that the jos is a legitimate state.

France and italy are now willing to sacrifice their soldiers’ lives in lebanon to protect the jos and to promote the global jewish empire. It is possible they will play the same role as the south lebanon army after the jews’ 1982 invasion. "To reduce the burden on its own forces, the Israelis created a species of Milice in the form of the locally recruited South Lebanon Army – first under Major Saad Haddad, who had broken from the Lebanese army in 1976 with a few hundred men, and later under General Antoine Lahad. Both were Christians, and their troops – armed, trained, fed and clothed by Israel – were mainly Shia Muslims from the south. About a third of the force, which grew to almost 10,000, were Christians. Some joined because they resented the Palestinians’ armed presence in south Lebanon. Others enlisted because they needed the money: the region has always been Lebanon’s poorest. The SLA had a reputation for cruelty, confirmed when its torture chambers at Khiam were opened after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, and for a high rate of desertions. As Israel pulled back from Beirut, the high-water mark reached during its 1982 invasion, its share of Lebanon contracted further and further. Having seized 3560 square kilometres, about a third of the country, containing around 800 towns and villages, Israel found itself in 1985 with only 500 square kilometres and 61 villages, mostly deserted. Hizbullah, which led the resistance that had forced the Israelis to abandon most of their conquest, demanded the unconditional return of all Lebanese territory. Its attacks intensified, resulting in a loss of IDF soldiers that became unpalatable to most Israelis. The Israeli army placed the SLA between itself and Hizbullah so that it could pay the price that Israel had decided it could not afford." (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books Vol. 28 No. 16 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n16/print/glas01_.html August 17, 2006).

The jos, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish controlled congress, and the jewish dominated bush administration, helped to push the world’s military hyper-power into afghanistan to protect the jos from what the jews called al quaeda terrorism. The duty of protecting the jos from its enemies in afghanistan was later passed on to nato e.g. britain and canada. The jews also pushed america into the invasion of iraq to protect the jos from what they called iraqi terrorists. It was supposed to be a cakewalk but turned into a calamitous, vietnam-like, military disaster. Now the jews have pushed a range of western countries into lebanon to protect the jos from what the jews refer to as hezbollah terrorism. The global jewish empire is so powerful it has been able to force virtually all countries in the western world into providing the racist, kleptomaniacal, jos with military protection – nato in afghanistan; america and britain in iraq; and europe in lebanon. The western world is now willing to lay down its lives, its treasure, and its civilized values, solely to protect racist, jewish fundamentalist, crackpots. A military christian crusader crescent stretches across the middle east from lebanon in the west to afghanistan in the east whose sole function is to protect its jewish masters.

In comparison to the first draft formulated by america and france, un resolution 1701 was a setback for the rise of the global jewish empire. However, this setback was only of minor significance since it was just a reflection of the much more profound setback brought about by the jos’s military catastrophe in lebanon. Ever since the origins of the kleptomaniacal, terrorist, and racist, jos the jews have been used to winning easy victories against arab armies and this has boosted jewish supremacism the inspiring force behind the growth of the global jewish empire. The jews have now been defeated twice by a guerilla organization and what effect this will have in boosting the morale of the arab world in challenging the jos’s military supremacy in the region, and the global jewish empire, remains to be seen. Whether western european forces in lebanon will attempt to do what the jews could not do remains to be seen. Their actions will show whether they are impartial between the jos and lebanon or agents of the global jewish empire.

Note 1.
The jos and america financed and organized the cedar revolution in lebanon in spring 1995 not to bring about democracy but solely to push syria out of the country in order to make it possible to attack hezbolla.

Note 2.
The jews representative at the un was dan gillerman who’d become notorious for describing hezbollah as Animals. "Mr Gillerman said "something very important was missing" from Mr Annan's speech: any mention of terrorism. Hizbullah were "ruthless indiscriminate animals", he told reporters. "We must first address the core and the root cause of why these hostilities started in the first place, and who started them ... If there's a ceasefire while this cesspool continues to fester, we'll leave Hizbullah with the capability to do time and time again what they've done this time."" (Oliver Burkeman in New York and Ewen MacAskill "Israel angry, US wary as Annan peace plan calls for ceasefire" http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1825727,00.html July 21, 2006).

Note 3.
Blair’s prime motivating force is his love of power. He likes accumulating power but his primary passion is to be in the company of the rich and powerful. Hence he sucked up to the zionist rupert murdoch in the most blatant way in order to win his support for the labour party in the 1997 general election. He went out of his way to protect the royal family during its turbulent times after the death of diana windsor. He poured nearly £10 billion into resuscitating the landowning aristocracy after the Animal exploitation industry was ruined by bse and then foot and mouth disease. He refused to carry out democratic reforms to the house of lords because he prefers to use it to reward his friends and those who donate large funds to the two main political parties. It was not surprising that he was friendly with clinton because he was a natural ally, but he then sucked up to bush even though he was not. Over the last year or so, as pressure has grown for him to retire from office, he seems to have cast aside all political responsibility. He has drifted off into the stratosphere and become a fervent neocon – after all it provides him with access to more powerful people around the world. He has become so desperate to hold onto power that he is willing to sacrifice not merely his party but the country itself for the sake of continuing to associate with the rich and evil. "Isolated within his party, with lukewarm cabinet support; isolated in Europe apart from Germany; and very much isolated in the wider world he appears to be driven by a personal obsession with leadership." (Leader ‘Defiance and isolation’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1836001,00.html August 3, 2006).

Note 4.
"In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels. The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories." (Shahid Raza Burney ‘India bans Arab TV channels under pressure from Israel’ http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=11506 August 06, 2006).

Raimondo’s Bizarre Equivocations over Hezbollah.

2006-08-02T06:53:00.000-07:00

Updated August 28, 2006

Raimondo’s Proposition of the Moral Equivalence between the Jos, Osma bin Laden, and Hezbollah.
Justin Raimondo’s analyzes of the role played by the Jewish lobby in America, and of the Jewish neocons’ influence on America’s foreign policies, are usually insightful but he seems to have drifted off target when it comes to the war on Lebanon. He condemns Osama bin Laden, the Jews-only state in Palestine (Jos), and Hezbollah, for holding similar views about the legitimacy of slaughtering of civilians and their disdain for the principle of proportionality.

Firstly, as regards slaughtering civilians. Raimondo points out that the Jews’ slaughter of civilians is rooted in Judaism by quoting a recent statement issued by the Yesha Rabbinical Council: "According to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy. All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation and are costing us in the blood of our soldiers and civilians." He then highlights a quote from Osama bin Laden to show what he believes is the similarity between bin Laden, the Jos, and Hezbollah. He then concludes, "The Middle Eastern "morality" that allows the Israelis to target the Beirut airport, where tourists ducked and covered, and permits Hezbollah to lob Katyusha rockets into Haifa, is given its dark voice by bin Laden .." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9459 August 2, 2006. However, Raimondo rightly points out that Hezbollah doesn’t hide behind civilians whilst it is attacking the racist Jos. "Hezbollah doesn’t trust noncombatants, and for that reason keeps well away from them no matter what their religious, ethnic, or political affiliations." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9459 August 2, 2006).

Secondly, Raimondo also believes that Osama bin Laden, the Jos, and Hezbollah, have a similar disdain for the principle of proportionality. "The principle of proportionality doesn’t apply in the Middle East or North Africa – where history and culture have conspired to produce a socio-political milieu in which a disproportionately violent response to the least provocation is required." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9459 August 2, 2006).

Raimondo manages to conflate these three groups only through a racist perspective. He talks about the "Middle Eastern morality" of slaughtering civilians and the propensity in "the Middle East or North Africa" for disproportionate attacks. Whilst it is true that both of these accusations apply to the Jos, it is absurd to believe that they also apply to every other country in the Middle East and North Africa! And, by implication, that they apply only to countries in the Middle East and North Africa! From Raimondo’s racist perspective, since Hezbollah exists in the Middle East then it too must be as bad as the Jos and Osama bin Laden!

This article explores the profound differences between Osama bin Laden and Hasan Nasrullah, leader of Hezbollah, The first part of this article suggests that Raimondo is wrong to accuse Nasrullah for being as bad as Osama bin Laden. Hezbollah’s tactics and strategy are just about as different from those promoted by Osama bin Laden as it is possible to get. The second part of this article explores the issue of disproportionality. In what was clearly a military operation, hezbollah arrested two Jewish soldiers who’d trespassed into the Lebanon. The Jos used this as a pretext to launch a pre-planned, totally disproportionate, attack on Lebanese civilians, turning increasing parts of southern Lebanon into a wasteland. The Jos’s racist attacks culminated most infamously in the slaughter of Lebanese civilians, many of whom were children, in Qana. It might have been thought the Jos’s disproportionate attack on Lebanese civilians was as blatant an example of a black and white moral issue as it is possible to get in international politics. But, to Raimondo, Hezbollah is just as bad as the Jos.

The Political Differences between Nasrullah and bin Laden.
Politically, Hasan Nasrullah’s tactics and strategy are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from those pursued by Osama bin Laden.

Firstly, Nasrullah condemned bin Laden’s 2001 Pentagon and New York bombings.

Secondly, whilst bin Laden has encouraged a civil war in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis (to the great benefit of the Jews and Americans), Nasrullah has pursued a strategy of uniting the two branches of Islam in Lebanon. The leader of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi used to condemn Nasrullah for trying to bring about such religious co-operation. However, the benefit of Nasrullah’s strategy became apparent during the Jos’s attack on Lebanon. "On July 21, nine days after his forces captured the two Israeli soldiers, Nasrallah answered Zarqawi and Tartusi. Looking relaxed and reasonable, in a carefully staged interview with Al Jazeera, he mentioned Zarqawi's statement. "Today, we are Shia fighting Israel," he pointed out, in a peroration not unlike the one he made the day his son died. "Our fighting and steadfastness is a victory to our brothers in Palestine, who are Sunnis, not Shia. So, we, Shia and Sunnis, are fighting together against Israel, which is supported, backed, and made powerful by America."" (Annia Ciezadlo ‘Sheik Up’ http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060807 July 28, 2006). (1)

Thirdly, Nasrullah is a religious pluralist. He has not merely fostered good relations between Shiites and Sunnis, he has sought a political rapprochement with Lebanese Christians. "Like Sadr, however, he (Nasrullah) fully understood the multitude of Lebanon's confessional system, never once calling for an Islamic state in Lebanon, and always proclaiming to be a firm believer in the right of all Lebanese, regardless of religion, to live in harmony." (Sami Moubayed ‘Lebanon guided by the Nasrullah factor’ Asia Times February 26, 2005). Earlier this year, Nasrullah reached a rapprochement with the former exiled leader of the Lebanese Christians, General Aoun. "Last week Ya Libnan reported that general Aoun declared that Hezbollah is his closest ally. Yesterday he made it official. Aoun and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah Secretary General met to ink their agreement. Aoun and Nasrallah were on opposing ends. Aoun was a main proponent of anti-Syrian protests in the wake of former Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination last February. His organization supported the Cedar Revolution of March 14 while Nasrallah organized the pro-Syrian demonstration of March 8. But Aoun broke with other anti-Syrian groups and charted his own middle-of-the-road course with Syria and with its allies in Lebanon. Nasrallah, meanwhile, broke an old alliance with anti-Syrian politician Walid Jumblatt, and with other partners in the coalition. The Shiite-Christian embrace, which Nasrallah and Aoun repeatedly insisted was "not a political alliance or front against other parties, but rather a political rapprochement," was held at Mar Mikhail Church, located a few blocks from Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut's southern suburbs. Nasrallah said the meeting did not cover the issue of the presidency, but insisted his party will support Aoun's candidacy for president. "We see in Aoun a serious and competent candidate who enjoys wide popularity," Nasrallah said." (It's official: Aoun and Hezbollah are allies’ http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/02/it_is_official_1.php February, 7th 2006). In other words, Nasrullah propped up the Lebanon’s confessional political system by supporting a Christian candidate for presidency even though he knows that under this political system the Shiites are considerably under-represented. Since the Lebanese Shiites are by far the largest ethnic group in Lebanon then, under a normal democratic system, they would stand a good chance of winning the presidency. (2)

Just in case it might be thought that Nasrullah was engaging in diplomacy simply to disarm his opponents it ought to be pointed out that he refused to allow the slaughter of Christians who’d collaborated with the Jewish occupation. As Charles Glass has pointed out, after world war two, the French resistance slaughtered thousands of French people who’d collaborated with the Nazis but Nasrullah resisted the temptation to do something similar after they’d pushed the Jewish military out of Lebanon. "But what impressed most Lebanese as much as Hizbullah’s victory over Israel was its refusal to murder collaborators – a triumph over the tribalism that has plagued and divided Lebanese society since its founding. Christians I knew in the Lebanese army admitted that their own side would have committed atrocities. Hizbullah may have been playing politics in Lebanon, but it refused to play Lebanese politics. What it sought in south Lebanon was not revenge, but votes. In the interval between its founding in 1982 and the victory of 2000, Hizbullah had become – as well as an armed force – a sophisticated and successful political party. It jettisoned its early rhetoric about making Lebanon an Islamic republic, and spoke of Christians, Muslims and Druze living in harmony. When it put up candidates for parliament, some of those on its electoral list were Christians. It won 14 seats." (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books August 03.2006). To suggest that Hezbollah is an Islamic fundamentalist party when it some of its candidates for election are Christians is clearly absurd.

Once again, just how much this rapprochement paid off for Nasrullah is transparent from the fact that Lebanon’s Christian community did not turn on Hezbollah after the Jews’ started blitzing Lebanon. "When Israeli bombs start landing in Christian Lebanon, the Christians did not blame Hezbollah. If this was a war on Hezbollah, they reasoned, then why were they being attacked? Attacking them meant that this was a war on Lebanon - all of Lebanon, not only the Shi'ites and Hezbollah." (Sami Moubayed ‘Hezbollah banks on home-ground advantage’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG26Ak01.html July 26, 2006). Both the Jos and America promoted the blitz to trigger off a civil war that would make a Jos ground invasion of Lebanon that much less costly in terms of military casualties. It didn’t work because Nasrullah had succeeded in winning allies across Lebanon’s religious groups. "While neo-conservatives believed the destruction of Lebanon and the death of civilians would incite the Lebanese to act against Hezbollah, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Speaker Nabih Berri, Saad Hariri (son of assassinated prime minister Rafik Hariri), General Michel Aoun, President Emile Lahoud and other major leaders of Lebanon have predictably rallied against Israeli actions, despite Hezbollah's initial steps." (Neda Bolourchi ‘Iran's changing fortunes’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH09Ak02.html August 9, 2006). (3)

Fourthly, Nasrullah is a Lebanese nationalist whose prime political objectives are firstly, regaining the freedom of the innocent Lebanese people being held illegally in Jewish prisons (including members of the South Lebanon Army who collaborated with the Jos’s invasion after 1982) and, secondly, ending the Jos’s occupation of Lebanese territory. He has sought political co-operation with all those who support the same objectives. When he became head of Hezbollah he opened up the organization to all Lebanese citizens. "Nasrallah capitalized on this moment of popularity, opening the ranks of Hezbollah to Lebanese from all sects and forming the Lebanese Brigades, a unit with several thousand non-Shia recruits." (Annia Ciezadlo ‘Sheik Up’ http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060807 July 28, 2006); "Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Hezbollah is principally neither a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982. At first it consisted of a small number of Shiites supported by Iran. But as more and more Lebanese came to resent Israel’s occupation, Hezbollah - never tight-knit - expanded into an umbrella organization that tacitly coordinated the resistance operations of a loose collection of groups with a variety of religious and secular aims." (Robert Pape ‘Ground to a Halt’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt350.html August 3, 2006). Nasrullah continues to promote Lebanese nationalism. "God forbid, if the roof collapses, it collapses on all of us," Nasrallah told at least 100,000 Shi'ite Muslims gathered for Ashura, the most solemn event in their calendar. "Today we are responsible for a nation that came out of the civil war ... but we face acute problems, especially this year and in the past few months," the black-turbaned cleric said. "As Lebanese, we have no choice for remedying our crises and problems except to discuss and meet, even if we are angry and tense," he said. "We must not repeat the mistakes of the past."" (Alistair Lyon ‘Hizbollah Tells Lebanese to Cool Anti-Syria Line - Feb 19 2005).

Nasrullah has sought co-operation even with his so-called enemies, "Even Hezbollah's fiercest Lebanese foe, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who during the ''Cedar Revolution'' praised Bush's transformation strategy as ''the start of a new Arab world'' comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall, told the Financial Times this week that he was forced to support the Shia militia against ''brutal Israeli aggression'' that would result in the weakening of the central government and the strengthening of Hezbollah and, through it, Syria and Iran." (Jim Lobe ‘U.S. Watches Dreams of Transformation Dissolve’ http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34228 August 03, 2006).

Fifthly, Nasrullah has turned Hezbollah into an organization that provides health care, education, social services, and small scale investments for local businesses. "They cover medical bills, offer health insurance, pay school fees, and make seed money available for small businesses," said the Times." (Saturday's New York Times quoted by Thalif Deen ‘Israel's Military Invincibility Dented by Hezbollah’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=9506 August 9, 2006); "The growth of Hezbollah’s charitable operations increased non-state-level financial support for the organization not only from Iran, but from the rest of the Shi’ite world, since formalized charity is a religious duty. As this charitable activity increased, Hezbollah was on the road to ceasing its activities as a terrorist group and gradually assuming the role of a political organization. Even in its current engagement with Israel, its "terrorist" activities have been reframed as national defense, especially as Hezbollah began to use conventional military forces and weapons." (William O. Beeman ‘Examining Iran’s ties to Hezbollah’ http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2790/ August 15, 2006).

Sixthly, Nasrullah has also turned Hezbollah into a political party to fight Lebanon’s local and national elections. If the 2005 national elections had been contested on a ‘One Person, One vote’ system then Hezbollah would have ended up with far more seats in the Lebanese parliament and in the Lebanese cabinet. "Hezbollah's political wing controls 14 of 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament, two Cabinet ministries ." (Thomas Frank and Yaakov Katz ‘Hezbollah Maintains its Rocket Barrage’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-27-hezbollah_x.htm July 27, 2006). Nasrullah supports democracy - unlike Osama bin Laden.

Incidentally, the ridiculous apostle of democracy, George Bush, had tried to deter Lebanon from allowing Hezbollah to take part in the 2005 elections. "The US under Clinton had consistently warned Beirut not to admit Hizbullah to the government, and even the Bush administration had adopted that position as recently as January of 2004." (Juan Cole ‘Is the Arab Spring turning to Dust under Israeli Bombardment?’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 14, 2006).

Seventhly, Nasrullah has given up on his terrorist past, "The main question raised by this Arab Spring is whether Washington will be able to continue to view Hizbullah as nothing more than a terrorist organization. Whatever else it is, it clearly is an important Lebanese political party. And evidence for its having carried off an international terrorist strike in the past 7 years seems slim." (Juan Cole ‘Hizbullah Wins Big in South Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_06_01_juancole_archive.html June 6th 2005); "Investigations by the US Congressional Research Service, the State Department and independent think-tanks failed to identify any major act of terrorism by Hezbollah for more than a dozen years." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH23Ak03.html Aug 23, 2006).

Finally, Osama bin Laden’s main priority is attacking America and Americans. Nasrullah does not regard America as Lebanon’s main enemy. As far as he, and thus Hezbollah, is concerned Lebanon’s primary enemy is the Jos. "During the recent crisis, Hezbollah has not attacked U.S. targets. Hezbollah has no interest in attacking the United States because "our response would be swift and pretty definitive," says State Department counterterrorism coordinator Henry Crumpton. "Hezbollah is, no doubt, Israel's most formidable opponent," says Bob Baer, a former CIA operative in the Middle East who investigated Hezbollah in the 1980s. Baer says Hezbollah wants to "signal to Muslims the war is against Israel. The idea is not to destroy Western civilization but rather to fight an enemy who is oppressing the Palestinians." (Thomas Frank and Yaakov Katz ‘Hezbollah Maintains its Rocket Barrage’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-27-hezbollah_x.htm July 27, 2006).

One security expert has even suggested that Hezbollah would be willing to discuss issues of mutual interest with America. "In a career spanning three decades, Bearden headed the CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe Division, and served as station chief in places like Pakistan and Sudan. He also ran the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan from 1986-1989. Yahoo! News consultant Milt Bearden stated, "But they've always been willing to try to broaden the dialogue quietly. In the last year I've been in many hours of meetings with some of them, to where I can guarantee you that they would have welcomed a quiet dialogue with the United States, and they have repeatedly said they have no great quarrel with the United States." (Quoted in Robert Padavick ‘Going the Distance’ http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs8074 August 2, 2006). That such a dialogue has become impossible has nothing to do with Hezbollah but is solely due to the demonization of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization by the Jos and America’s Jewish dominated media, Congress and Presidency.

As a result of its extensive business, social, educational, health, and political, activities Hezbollah was becoming increasingly integrated into Lebanese society and politics which, over the course of time, would have led to its complete moderation. "After all, Hezbollah is a part of Lebanon's coalition government and, per an Israeli media report, only two months ago an Israeli general stated that Hezbollah was moderating and integrating in Lebanon's political process." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘A war without borders in the making’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG29Ak01.html July 29, 2006). "Although many of the Christians, Druze, and Sunni Muslims I met in Beirut before the bombing started saw the militancy of Hezbollah as a threat to this future, they were also optimistic that Hezbollah’s increasing participation in the country’s political process would lead to the gradual attenuation of the movement’s militant stance. Some progress in this direction was already evident: the number of active Hezbollah fighters had declined significantly since Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, and the greater part of the movement’s activities were now focused on social and political issues, providing welfare services to the poor in Shiite neighborhoods, building schools, and taking part in electoral politics. Anxieties about its armed militias aside, Hezbollah had increasingly shown itself to be a positive social force in the country. And while most Lebanese I met had no wish to see their nation again entangled in a conflict with Israel, they viewed Hezbollah’s militant posture as an unfortunate but natural outgrowth of Israeli belligerency - after all, Hezbollah first emerged in the aftermath of the 1982 Israeli invasion so as to free southern Lebanon from the Israeli occupiers. While the disarming of Hezbollah’s military wing - as called for by UN resolution 1559 - was an imminent goal for most of those I spoke to in Beirut, they also realized that this could not be forced on the movement without pushing the country over the brink of another civil war. The consensus among critics of Hezbollah was that the only avenue for disarming the movement’s military wing was through political pressure and dialogue." (Charles Hirschkind ‘"Doing the Lebanese a Favor" http://www.counterpunch.org/hirschkind08092006.html August 9, 2006).

Hezbollah’s increasing integration into Lebanese politics would have boosted the prospects for the survival of the country’s fledgling democracy which the Jos, with approval from George Bush, did so much to undermine by launching such a devastating attack on the country. Hezbollah has done more to bring democracy to Lebanon than Bush or the Jos combined. "In essence, Bush and his administration have decided that the primary goal of US policy at this juncture should be to buy time for Israel so it can keep pummeling its hapless neighbor. At the same time, however, the United States claims an unshakable commitment to the Lebanese people and professes to be concerned about the survival of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government. This self-evident contradiction is just the latest permutation of America's long history of trying to have it both ways, so it has not exposed a sinister "secret angle" of US policy. It has intensified speculation, however, as to precisely what that policy is." (Marc J Sirois ‘America's credibility will be a casualty of Israel's war’ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74278 July 27, 2006); "The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Where Are Bush's Critics Now?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9328 July 19, 2006).

It has to be suggested that Hezbollah’s increasing integration into Lebanese society was something the Jews could not tolerate. Ironically, the Jews had invaded Lebanon in 1982 precisely because Arafat was on the verge of capitulating to the racist Jos. "In 1982 Israel had a problem. Yasir Arafat, headquartered in Beirut, was making ready to announce that the PLO was prepared to sit down with Israel and embark on peaceful, good faith negotiations towards a two-state solution." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html July 21, 2006). What the Jos are currently trying to do is to force Hezbollah into becoming a terrorist organization again so that it can use this as an ever available pretext to continue oppressing Lebanon and eventually annexing southern Lebanon up to the Litany river. "De Clermont (a retired pastor of the Reformed Church of France) who spoke for the two other delegation members who joined him at a news conference in the World Council's headquarters, said Israel would not want the existence of a democratic Lebanon where Jews, Christians and Muslims were peacefully living side by side, because it does not want to see its neighbor state succeeding in what Israel is unsuccessfully trying to achieve." (Eliane Engeler ‘World Council of Churches: Israel planned to destroy Lebanon’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525888240&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull August 17, 2006).

The Jews are desperate to force Nasralluh into terrorism – its politically embarrassing for them to denounce Nasralluh as a terrorist without any evidence. They support such a tactic, even though if successful, it could pose a serious threat to the United States. "Hezbollah, however, is an anti-Israeli Lebanese Shia group (al-Qaeda is extremist Sunni Arab). Given that the al-Qaeda threat has not been eliminated (most notably, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are both still thought to be at large somewhere in Pakistan), the last thing the United States can afford to do is needlessly make new terrorist enemies and give groups such as Hezbollah (considered by some analysts to be the A-team of terrorist organizations) reasons to attack U.S. targets." (Charles Peña ‘The Lebanon Conundrum’ http://www.antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=9457 August 3, 2006).

Nasrullah is thus at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Osama bin Laden. It has been concluded, "Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten." (Anders Strindberg ‘Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html August 01, 2006).

It is much easier to make the case that the Jos is a terrorist state than it is to make such a case about Hezbollah, "They (Hezbollah) also provide a wide range of welfare services to the Lebanese people, and they are not terrorists. The largest terrorist organization in the Middle East is the state of Israel, which kills civilians by the hundreds." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9385 July 22, 2006). Under the influence of Jewish power both America and Britain are also more like terrorist states than Hezbollah, "On the face of it, it seems as if the British PM doesn’t really know the difference between terrorism and freedom fighting. Terrorism is all about scoring points by spreading fear. This is obviously something Britain, America and Israel are practicing daily in Beirut, Baghdad, Basra and Kabul. Freedom fighting, on the other hand is to oppose Zionised Anglo-American terrorism. Freedom fighting is to claim your land and to fight an invader. This is exactly what the Hamas, the Hezbollah, and the Taliban are engaged with. Yes Mr Blair, Hezbollah’s war isn’t terrorism, it is a purely legitimate struggle grounded on a consistent humanist approach. As we all know, Hezbollah vowed to disarm when Sheeba Farm, occupied by Israel, is returned to Lebanese hands. May I tell you Mr Blair, if you were not a compulsive liar lacking any moral integrity, you would probably find yourself supporting the Hezbollah like most Arabs and Muslims do. You would as well support Arab resistance very much like every free spirit humanist on this planet. But somehow instead, you prefer to support the Zionist criminal tale. No wonder you have chosen a wealthy Zionist to be your prime fund raiser." (Gilad Atzmon ‘Tony Blair: The Orator is Naked’ http://www.aljazeerah.info/9%20o/Tony%20Blair%20The%20Orator%20is%20Naked%20By%20Gilad%20Atzmon.htm August 9, 2006).

Nasrullah’s Growing Stature.
Nasrullah has transcended his status as a Shiite cleric and leader of a Shiite organization to become a political and religious pluralist, a nationalist, and a democrat. As a consequence, the Jos’s attacks on Lebanon have united the country around Hezbollah, and turned Nasrullah into a national hero. Those fighting against the Jewish empire’s imperialist adventure in Lebanon include all Lebanese nationalists not merely Shiites but Sunnis and Christians. Nasrullah is a nationalist not a religious fundamentalist, "Pragmatism, nationalism and charity networks, rather than Muslim ideology, are the secrets of Hezbollah's success. Hezbollah enjoys authority and commands unwavering loyalty among Shi'ites because it always appears to be a confident political party that is doing an honorable job in fighting Israel. Adding to the nationalist aspect is the social one, which is that many people in the Shi'ite community, mainly at the grass-root level, rely on Hezbollah for charity and welfare. Hezbollah has succeeded in promoting itself through the media, igniting confidence, safety and security among the 10 million viewers of al-Manar television, for example. Many of those viewers are Shi'ites. Not once does al-Manar, for example, show viewers a member of Hezbollah defeated. Rather, it shows pictures of dead Israelis, real footage of Hezbollah operations and programs highlighting Hezbollah's charity organizations. Hezbollah is a movement inspired by nationalism rather than religiousness." (Sami Moubayed ‘It's war by any other name’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html July 15, 2006).

Nasrullah has also become a hero throughout the Middle East. "A quintessentially Shia leader -a cleric, even -had transcended his sect to become a national hero. The more Israel pounds Hezbollah and Lebanon's Shia, the more it burnishes Nasrallah's image as defender of the umma." (Annia Ciezadlo ‘Sheik Up’ http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060807 July 28, 2006). But, it is misleading to conclude, "Nasrallah has outgrown his Shi'ite identity and transformed himself into a pan-Lebanese, pan-Arab and pan-Islamic leader. The fact that he is a cleric, a Muslim and a Shi'ite is actually of little importance at this stage of his war with Israel." (Sami Moubayed ‘Nasrallah and the three Lebanons’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH03Ak01.html August 3, 2006). It is more accurate to suggest that Nasrullah has become a universalist, "In a televised speech last Saturday, Sheik Nasrallah tried to assuage fears about Shiite dominance. "I say to the Lebanese that none of you should be afraid of the victory of the resistance, but you should be afraid of its defeat," he said. "It will be a victory for every Arab, Muslim, Christian and honorable person in the world who stood against the aggression and defended Lebanon."" (Neil MacFarquhar ‘Hezbollah’s Prominence Has Many Sunnis Worried’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt355.html August 4, 2006).

Just how many more political differences do there have to be between Nasrullah and Osama bin Laden before Raimondo stops equating the two? It is quite legitimate for Raimondo to equate Osama bin Laden with the Jos. But to equate Osama bin Laden with Hasan Nasrullah is preposterous. Raimondo is just reinforcing the propaganda tactics of the Jewish dominated media around the world which is smearing Nasrullah and Hezbollah as an agent, or offshoot, of Osama bin Laden. Juan Cole has also bizarrely denounced Nazrullah and Hezbollah as "the hard line Shiite fundamentalist party, Hizbullah" (Juan Cole ‘Is the Arab Spring turning to Dust under Israeli Bombardment?’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 14, 2006).

Raimondo’s changing Analyzes.
In his ‘Moral Equivalence’ article published on August 02, 2006 Raimondo alleged, just like the Jewish neocons he detests, that Hezbollah is just as bad as Osama bin Laden. However, on a number of occasions, both before and after his article, Raimondo has pointed out some of the fundamental differences between Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden.

In an article published July 28, 2006 Raimondo pointed out that, "Nasrallah has denounced terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the 9/11 attack. "We reject those methods, and believe they contradict Islam and the teachings of the Quran, which do not permit this barbarity." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430 July 28, 2006). So, why did he argue the following week that Hasan Nasrallah was as bad as Osama bin Laden?

A couple of weeks after his ‘Moral Equivalence’ article Raimondo acknowledged Hezbollah’s vital social and economic roles in Lebanon. "When you think about it, Hezbollah puts into practice some of the main tenets of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" – what else is Hassan Nasrallah's extensive network of social and charitable agencies other than an enormously successful "faith-based initiative"?" (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9542 August 16, 2006). Al Quaeda does not provide such services.

The week before his ‘Moral Equivalence’ article Raimondo had pointed out that Hezbollah wasn’t a terrorist organization like al Quaeda. "this (Hezbollah) is no guerrilla group, but a highly organized political party, which, as President Lahoud of Lebanon reminded us the other day, is "part of the government of Lebanon."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Danger! Legacy Ahead!’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9397 July 24, 2006). A few weeks after his ‘Moral Equivalence’ Raimondo stated, "The president (George Bush) parrots the Israeli line that Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization that represents a mortal threat to Americans worldwide, but the reality is quite different, as the U.S. intelligence community recognized in a National Intelligence Estimate prepared in April, which, according to Laura Rozen, "says that Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans."" (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9542 August 16, 2006).

The week before his ‘Moral Equivalence’ article Raimondo had pointed out the critical difference between Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden in terms of their primary enemies, "Hezbollah, on the other hand, has in the past disclaimed any intention of attacking America or American interests abroad. Nasrallah has denounced terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the 9/11 attack. Hezbollah's ire is aimed exclusively at Israel ..." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430 July 28, 2006). So why did he claim that Hezbollah is the same as Al Quaeda even though the latter focuses overwhelmingly on America and americans?

The Gross Disproportionality between the Jos’s War Crimes and those committed by Hezbollah.
Raimondo believes there is a moral equivalence between Hezbollah and the Jos. "The Israelis, as we have seen from the first days of this bloody war, are no different than Hezbollah in their tactics or their intentions: they’re both bloody murderers, the only difference being that the Israelis are better-armed – and receive much more aid from their Western allies than Hezbollah could ever dream of getting from Syria or Iran." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9459 August 2, 2006). What is bizarre about this proposition is that Raimondo undermines its validity by rightly pointing out that the Jos’s response to Hezbollah’s arrest of two Jewish soldiers trespassing on Lebanese territory was "so grotesquely disproportionate". If the Jos’s response to this minor border incident was "so grotesquely disproportionate". then how can he smear Hezbollah as being equally as bad as the racist Jos? The Jews’ "grotesquely disproportionate" response indicates their utter moral depravity, even more so since they have been using these same tactics against unarmed Palestinians ever since the demolition of Jenin in 2002. Raimondo’s bizarre equivalence needs to be debunked since there are other commentators who fall into the same trap.

Firstly, Hezbollah launched roughly 4,000 rockets into the Jos. The vast majority of these rockets were Katyushas which have a warhead of a mere 50lbs! These rockets had little in the way of guidance systems and were thus highly inaccurate. Hezbollah fired only a handful of its bigger rockets which have a war head of a mere 100kg although they are more accurate than Katyushas.

In comparison, the Jos attacked Lebanon with fighter jets, ships, tanks and mortars on land, and pilotless drones. The Jewish airforce flew a large number of missions into Lebanon. "The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Watching Lebanon: Washington’s interests in Israel’s war’ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact August 14, 2006). Amongst the vast number of bombs dropped during these missions were cluster bombs containing thousands of bomblets. In other words, the Jewish airforce alone dropped more bombs on Lebanon than Hezbollah rockets aimed at the Jos. The Jews fired an even greater numbers of shells from ships, tanks, and mortars. To provide an inkling of the disparity between the Jos and Hezbollah in the number of shells fired, "The Israelis fired 1,000 shells at Khiam alone on Wednesday." (Juan Cole ‘More Bodies Found in Shiyah Rubble’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 10, 2006). As a rough guess, the total number of bombs dropped by the Jews during the war was probably somewhere between one million and two million. What exacerbates the disparity in the firepower between the Jos and Hezbollah is that virtually all Jos’s artillery shells from ships, tanks, and mortars, had more explosive power than a Katyusha rocket. "These rockets cannot be targeted with any precision, and most lack the firepower of a single Israeli artillery shell." (Juan Cole ‘More Bodies Found in Shiyah Rubble’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 10, 2006). Whilst Hezbollah was launching rockets with 50lb warheads, the Jos dropped a single bomb containing 23 tonnes of high explosives on Beirut in an effort to assassinate Nasrullah. It was estimated that after only two weeks of the war, "Israel has already dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on the country than it did during Sharon’s invasion in 1982." (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books August 03.2006). Another factor increasing the disparity between the Jos’s firepower and that of Hezbollah is that most of the Jos’s bombs were precision guided to cause maximum damage whereas Hezbollah’s rockets were so inaccurate they caused no damage whatsoever.

In conclusion, the Jos’s firepower was a substantial order of magnitude greater than Hezbollah’s. The total number of shells launched by the Jos must have been a thousand times greater than that launched by Hezbollah. The tonnage of explosives used by the Jos must have been equally disproportionate. And the accuracy with which the Jos’s bombs were delivered was far superior to that of Hezbollah’s bombs. The Jos launched anywhere between a million and two million shells, using thousands of tonnes of highly quality explosives, which were deliberately aimed with pinpoint accuracy at civilians.

How this vast difference in the lethality of the attacks launched by the Jos to those launched by Hezbollah can be interpreted to make both sides as bad as each other is beyond comprehension. It could even be argued that the main purpose of Hezbollah’s Katyusha attacks was not so much military as political - to indicate to the Jos and the rest of the world that Hezbollah refused to be wiped off the face of the Earth by Jews pursuing their lebensraum policies.

Secondly, even more tellingly than firepower, the great majority of those killed by Hezbollah were military personnel not civilians whereas the overwhelming majority of those killed by the Jos were civilians rather than military personnel. "According to the Associated Press, as of this writing Lebanese dead total at least 715, of whom 628 are civilians, 29 Lebanese soldiers (who, at least officially, are not in the fight), and only 58 Hezbollah fighters. So Israel, with its American-style hi-tech "precision weaponry," has killed 10 times as many innocents as enemies. In contrast, of 120 Israeli dead, 82 are soldiers and only 38 civilians, despite the fact that Hezbollah's rockets are anything but precise (think Congreves). Israel can hit anything it can target, but against a Fourth Generation enemy, it can target very little. The result not only points to a battlefield change of some significance, it also raises the question of who is the real "terrorist." Terror bombing by aircraft is still terror." (William S. Lind ‘Collapse of the Flanks’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=9514 August 11, 2006).

Thirdly, in absolute terms, the Jos killed far more civilians than Hezbollah. Even more strikingly, whilst the Jos deliberately killed civilians, Hezbollah did not. No civilian was deliberately killed by Hezbollah.

Finally, the Jos was responsible for initiating events to which Hezbollah merely responded. The Jos was clearly responsible for not merely starting the war but escalating it.
* the Jos was the first to start the kidnapping tactic in Lebanon not Hezbollah.

* since Hezbollah ended the Jewish occupation of Lebanon in 2000, the Jos has carried out far more violations of Lebanese sovereignty than Hezbollah violatations of the Jos. "Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports." (Anders Strindberg ‘Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html August 01, 2006).

* the Jos was holding Lebanese prisoners whilst Hezbollah was not holding Jewish prisoners. "As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism. Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict." (Anders Strindberg ‘Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html August 01, 2006).

* Hezbollah’s arrest of two Jewish soldiers was clearly a military operation and yet the Jos responded by psychotically attacking Lebanese civilians.

* Hezbollah carefully escalated its responses to try and deter the Jos’s psychotic attacks.
Firstly, although the Jos launched a massive attack on Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah waited before retaliating in the hope that the attacks would cease. "Demanding the return of the soldiers, Olmert retaliated immediately by bombing villages, towns, and cities in Lebanon from the air and from the sea. It wasn’t until the next day that Hezbollah responded by firing rockets and mortars into Israel and on their towns and cities. In other words, it was Israel that first launched attacks on civilians." (Thomas Gale Moore ‘Israel's Quagmire’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/moore.php?articleid=9481 August 5, 2006).

Secondly, Hezbollah waited for a few days after the Jos’s blitz on Lebanese civilians before it retaliated by launching rockets against Haifa. "If Israel bombed the suburbs, then Hizbollah roared, it would fire its long-range Katyushas at the Israeli city of Haifa. One of them had apparently already damaged an Israeli air base at Miron, a fact concealed at the time by Israeli censors." (Robert Fisk ‘From my home, I saw what the 'war on terror' meant - July 14, 2006). The Jos lied about Hezbollah attacking Haifa soon after the start of the war because it was attempting to whip up Jewish support for its unprovoked attack on Lebanon. "If that really was Hezbollah’s plan, it went wrong from the beginning. Tensions were already high, because of the Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier in Gaza, two weeks earlier, and Israel responded with bombing raids, including one, the next day, on Beirut’s airport. That night, a rocket fired from Hezbollah territory hit Haifa, and more missiles, in both directions, soon followed, resulting in casualties and the threat of regional war." (Jon Lee Anderson ‘The Battle for Lebanon: Has Israel’s assault weakened Hezbollah - or made it stronger? http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060807fa_fact July 31, 2006).

Thirdly, Hezbollah waited two weeks before it fired one of its larger rockets – once again solely in retaliation for the Jos’s hideously overwhelming bombardment of Lebanon. "On Friday Hizbullah fired its first khaibar missile, packed with 100kg of explosives, close by Nazareth - we could feel the earth tremble from the impact. The Shiite militia waited more than two weeks before launching a warhead of that size, after it made repeated threats to do so if Israel continued its onslaught. Who will point out that had Hizbullah wanted to, if Israel's destruction was the real aim, it could have fired those khaibar rockets from day one?" (Jonathan Cook ‘Birth Pangs or Death Throes?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook07312006.html July 31, 2006); "The Fajr-5 was first used in the July 28 attack on the Israeli town of Afula, then again in an attack on the West Bank town of Jenin on August 3." (Andrew McGregor ‘Hezbollah's Rocket Strategy’ http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370098 August 10, 2006).

Finally, Hezbollah even offered an end to its puny rocket attacks on the Jos if the Jos stopped its aerial bombardment of Lebanese civilians. "The leader of the militants (sic) promised that if Israel halted its bombardments in Lebanon, the group would halt its rocket attacks on Israeli cities. So far the Israelis have been unwilling to make that deal. Hezbollah has shown that it is willing to scale down the violence. During the 48 hours that Israel suspended air strikes partially, it virtually stopped missile strikes on Israel." (Thomas Gale Moore ‘Israel's Quagmire’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/moore.php?articleid=9481 August 5, 2006); "On August 3, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah made a televised offer to Israel to stop firing Hezbollah rockets in exchange for an end to Israeli air strikes in Lebanon. The Shiite leader warned, however, that Hezbollah would fire its rockets at Tel Aviv if the Israeli Air Force attacked Beirut (al-Manar TV, August 3)." (Andrew McGregor ‘Hezbollah's Rocket Strategy’ http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370098 August 10, 2006).

In conclusion: it is blatantly transparent that the Jos was the transgressor whilst Lebanese civilians were its victims. Whilst the Jews sought to go on the offensive whenever it could, Hezbollah abided by its defensive military strategy. "Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern." (Anders Strindberg ‘Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html August 01, 2006). Hezbollah acted with moderation and restraint in the face of a psychotic Jewish attack.

Raimondo believes there is a moral equivalence between the Jos and Hezbollah. Given that the Jos initiated the attack on Lebanon; given that it deliberately targeted civilians; given that the number of bombs dropped by the Jos, their explosive power, and their accuracy, were vastly greater than that of Hezbollah’s rockets; and given that Hezbollah fought only a defensive war, "during this war Hizbullah's rockets have been a response to Israeli provocations, that they are fired in return for Israel's devastating and indiscriminate bombardment of Lebanon?" (Jonathan Cook ‘From High Wycombe to Nazareth’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08112006.html August 11, 2006), then the Jos’s war crimes were vastly greater than those committed by Hezbollah. The disparity in war crimes committed by the Jos and those committed by Hezbollah is so great that it could be argued that Hezbollah’s contribution to the war was morally insignificant. In other words, Hezbollah’s war crimes against the Jos are insignificant in comparison to the hurricane of war crimes committed by the Jos against Lebanon. It would be like blaming Jews in the Warsaw ghetto for harming German citizens.

Raimondo alleges a moral equivalence exists between the Jos and Hezbollah. This is absurd – especially so since he has condemned the Jos for its "grotesquely disproportionate" attack on Lebanon. It is shocking that whilst many lefty or radical commentators have acknowledged that the Jos’s response to a minor border incident is grossly disproportionate, they nevertheless argue that morally and legally both sides are as bad as each other. Surely if the Jos initiated an attack, an indiscriminate attack on civilians, that was completely disproportionate to the original event, then the guilt for this war can be placed only on one side? It has to be asked what could anyone expect Hezbollah to do in the face of the Jews’ nazi-like aerial blitz? Just sit there and write letters to their mps in parliament? Anyone who suggests that Hezbollah should have done nothing, is inhuman and inhumane. Hezbollah has acted with moderation and restraint in the face of the monstrously evil assault launched by the Jos on Lebanon. Hezbollah is non racist, multi-religious, nationalistic, tolerant of secular society, and a supporter of multi-ethnic democracy. It is nothing like as reprehensible as the paranoid, hideously racist, pathologically violent, imperialist, Jos.

Raimondo’s Change of Views.
And, then, two weeks after proposing this moral equivalence between Hezbollah and the Jos, Raimondo changed his mind. "All fanatics are fond of systematic – and simplistic – explanations: in their view, everything is part of a vast narrative telling the story of a Manichean struggle between Darkness and Light. There is no differentiation, no variety in their analysis: from the neocon perspective, all Muslims are the same, there is no distinction to be made between Sunni and Shi'ite, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, the ayatollahs of Iraq and those of Iran, the Wahhabis and the Alawites. They are all servants of "the terror masters," as Ledeen, with his flair for melodrama, dubs the governments of the region. The jihadist internationalists, followers of bin Laden, are also inspired by a Manichean vision: they don't want to limit the conflict, but instead seek to expand it – to America, if possible. The neocons, for their part, don't mind putting the rest of us in mortal danger: it's part of the risk of their grand strategy, which they justify by repeating endlessly, "Don't you know there's a war on?" The jihadists and the neocons are brothers in spirit: both conjure the prospect of eternal war, and both, in their own distinctive and yet eerily similar ways, glory in the fighting of it. We are all of us caught between them, innocent civilians – and potential collateral damage. The question is: how do we get out of this untenable position?" (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9542 August 16, 2006).

Conclusions.
To place equal blame on both sides for the war on Lebanon would be an utter travesty. "We cannot ascribe equal amounts of moral blame to all sides. Israel is the oppressor in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon. America is the oppressor in Iraq. And there can be no hope for a peaceful resolution to these conflicts until Iraqis are freed from American occupation and Palestinians are allowed to build a viable state. It is the distorting and dehumanizing effects of occupation that made possible the proliferation of extremist groups that, albeit on a smaller scale, simply hand back to the occupier some of their own medicine." (Chris Hedges ‘Mutually Assured Destruction in the Middle East’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060714_chris_hedges_mutually_assured_destruction/ July 14, 2006). But this war was so one-sided, initiated, planned and executed by Jews that blame for it can lay only with the Jos. "If Hizbullah were a military, given Western standards, it would certainly be the most moral in the world." (Remi Kanazi ‘Losing its Morals and Marbles: Israel's Fight for Lebanon’ http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/24%20o/Losing%20its%20Morals%20and%20Marbles%20Israel's%20Fight%20for%20Lebanon%20By%20Remi%20Kanazi.htm August 24, 2006).

Note 1.
To provide another example. Sheikh Bilal, a close aide of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah was interviewed by Syed Saleem Shahzad and the following exchange ensued, "Shahzad: Hezbollah and the Brotherhood are very close. What is the secret of their closeness, despite Hezbollah being Shi'ite and the Brotherhood predominately Sunni? Bilal: Yes, this is true that we are close and we both work for the Islamic cause beyond any sectarian differences. But let me tell you that does not mean that we like takfiris [those militantly intolerant of "infidels"] like al-Qaeda. We hate them because they kill innocent people and destroy sacred places." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘'We are just hit-and-run guerrillas' http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH10Ak03.html August 10, 2006).

Note 2.
"Religious groups have been the main basis of political organization in Lebanon. The National Pact of 1943 provided for a Maronite Christian president, a Sunni Muslim prime minister, and a Shia Muslim speaker of parliament. It also determined that the ratio of seats in parliament would be six Christians for every five Muslims. Muslims sought greater power when they later surpassed Christians as the majority population in Lebanon. Tensions erupted in a civil war, which ended with a peace accord that reduced the authority of the Maronite president in favor of the Sunni Muslim prime minister, and gave Muslims and Christians an equal number of seats in parliament." (Roxana Saberi ‘Lebanese Christians Caught in Political Crossfire’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/saberi.php?articleid=9507 August 9, 2006).

Note 3.
This view is shared by other commentators. "Appearing this week on al-Jazeera, Aoun reiterated his stance that a united Lebanon must include Hezbollah members because they are "an integral part of the people." Now that the Syrian troops are gone, Aoun believes the country can reunite across religious backgrounds. As leader of the third largest political party, the Free Patriotic Movement, Aoun even came to an agreement of understanding with Hezbollah last winter." (Israeli Onslaught May Spark Aounist Resurgence’ http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=9408 July 26, 2006); "By the second day in August Halutz's bombardment had achieved the extraordinary feat of prompting the Maronite Catholic patriarch - the spiritual leader of the most pro-Western populace - to assemble Lebanon's religious leaders - Shiite and Sunni Muslims and various Christian confessions. The group issued a joint statement of solidarity, condemning the Israeli "aggression" and hailing "the resistance, mainly led by Hezbollah, which represents one of the sections of society."" (Alexander Cockburn ‘Halutz's Bombing War. Hezbollah's Top Ally in Israel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08032006.html August 3, 2006).

What the Filthy Jews did in Lebanon. The Jewish Holocaust against the Lebanese People

2006-07-31T05:18:00.000-07:00

Updated August 26 2006

All the evidence points in the direction that the Jews-only state in Palestine (Jos) is endeavoring to destroy Lebanon as a modern, civilized and democratic, country and, secondly, to depopulate the southern half of the country. The Jews are deliberately targeting innocent Lebanese civilians rather than Hezbollah freedom fighters. They have declared that anyone remaining in southern lebanon is a terrorist which means they become a target for annihilation. Israel's justice minister Mr Ramon said at a security cabinet meeting headed by Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah."" (Harry de Quetteville ‘You're all targets, Israel tells Lebanese in South’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/28/wmid28.xml July 28, 2006). They are forcing Lebanese civilians to flee from southern Lebanon and then slaughtering them whilst they’re fleeing. The Jews are destroying anything that moves. They are flattening whole towns and villages. They are trying to terrorize Lebanese civilians so that they will not return to their land. "The devastating bombing of houses, apartment buildings, power plants, fuel storage, roads, and bridges as far away as Beirut, and the killing of over one thousand civilians, was seen as intentionally directed toward civilians throughout Lebanon. Its purpose appears to have been to demonstrate such a level of ruthlessness as to discourage villagers from returning to their homes in southern Lebanon once the expected UN cease fire was finally imposed." (James Marc Leas ‘How Lebanese Civilians Thwarted Israel's War Plans’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leas08252006.html August 25, 2006). They are trying to cause so much damage to southern Lebanon that there will be nothing for those who have fled to return to. These days such a policy is called ethnic cleansing. In the past it was called Lebensraum. The Jews are carrying out yet another nazi policy. But in many respects it is nothing different from the exterminations depicted in the Jewish old testament. Basically what the Jews are doing in Lebanon is exactly the same as they are doing to the Palestinians in Gaza. They are turning the country into a wasteland, cutting people off from the outside world, turning them into destitute, malnourished, propertyless, internally displaced, stateless, people totally dependent on the whim of the international community for handouts and mere survival.

Hasbara: Israel does its best to spare as many Civilians as Possible.
Gabriel Ash.
"Of all Israeli "Hasbara’s" (propaganda) talking points, this is the most obscene. Let’s begin with the current war. There are over 300 Lebanese civilians killed already (the body count is probably obsolete by the time you read this), including whole families, and a large percentage of children. There is no evidence that even a handful of Hizbullah fighters were among the killed. Israel bombed scores of villages and densely inhabited neighborhoods in Beirut and Tyre. Among the important military targets Israel bombed were a Greek Orthodox church, a milk factory and food and medical supplies convoys. Nor are Israeli leaders trying to hide that they are targeting civilians who have no connection to Hizbullah. Israel’s Chief of Staff explained Israel’s careful vetting of targets, for example, with the statement that "nothing is safe." Indeed, Israel even bombed Christian neighborhoods." (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel, Lebanon: Defense Against the Black Arts’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash24.htm July 24, 2006).

Alexander Cockburn.
"Now Israel says it wants to wipe out Hezbollah. It wishes no harm to the people of Lebanon, just so long as they’re not supporters of Hezbollah, or standing anywhere in the neighborhood of a person or a house or a car or a truck or a road or a bus or a field, or a power station or a port that might, in the mind of an Israeli commander or pilot, have something to do with Hezbollah. In any of those eventualities all bets are off. You or your wife or your mother or your baby get fried." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html July 21, 2006).

Hezbollah Forced us to do It.
"Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, the repulsive Dan Gillerman said " . . . we grieve the deaths of those civilians and children. But it is very, very important to stress that they may have been hit by an Israeli bomb, but they are victims of the Hezbollah. If Hezbollah wasn't there, this would never have happened." His suggestion that the children might have been kept in Qana by force was the product of a diseased mind." (Brian Cloughley ‘Osama Has Won’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley08042006.html August 4, 2006).

If it Moves – Destroy it.
Humanitarian Conoys.
"On Tuesday, Israel hit a convoy of assistance sent to Lebanon from the United Arab Emirates, destroying an ambulance and a truck loaded with medicine. It later hit three trucks carrying sugar and rice near the Christian town of Zahle - the "town of wine and poetry"." (Sami Moubayed ‘Bunkered down for a war of attrition’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG22Ak01.html July 22, 2006).

"On Wednesday, An Israeli air strike 'hit a truck carrying medical and food supplies donated to Lebanon by the United Arab Emirates, killing its Syrian driver and wounding two others, security sources said. The truck was destroyed just a few kilometres from Lebanon's eastern border with Syria in the town of Anjar.' A truck full of medical and food supplies?" (Juan Cole ‘Israel Bombs Lebanese Army’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 27, 2006).

Ambulances.
"The ambulance headlamps were on, the blue light overhead was flashing, and another light illuminated the Red Cross flag when the first Israeli missile hit, shearing off the right leg of the man on the stretcher inside. As he lay screaming beneath fire and smoke, patients and ambulance workers scrambled for safety, crawling over glass in the dark. Then another missile hit the second ambulance. Even in a war which has turned the roads of south Lebanon into killing zones, Israel's rocket strike on two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances on Sunday night set a deadly new milestone. Six ambulance workers were wounded and three generations of the Fawaz family, being transported to hospital from Tibnin with what were originally minor injuries, were left fighting for their lives. Two ambulances were entirely destroyed, their roofs pierced by missiles." (Suzanne Goldenberg ‘Red Cross ambulances destroyed in Israeli air strike on rescue mission’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1828142,00.html July 25, 2006).

"And how come - since this now obsesses the humanitarian organisations working in Lebanon - that the Israelis bombed two ambulances in Qana, killing two of the three wounded inside. All the crews were injured - one with a piece of shrapnel in his neck - but what worried the Lebanese Red Cross was that the Israeli missiles had pierced the very centre of the red cross painted on the roof of each vehicle. Did the pious use the cross as their aiming point?" (Robert Fisk ‘Smoke signals from the battle of Bint Jbeil send a warning to Israel’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14223.htm July 27, 2006).

The Destruction of all Trucks in Lebanon.
"Israeli war planes fired on two parked trucks in the Christian Ashrafiyah district of Beirut. These innocuous trucks in a Christian area were clearly not legitimate military targets in a struggle against Hizbullah. The message the Israeli air force is trying to send with such actions is that Lebanese should stop driving trucks for a while, or else they will be targets." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Kills 57 in Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 20, 2006).

The Destruction of All Infrastructure.
Civilian and Industrial Infrastructure.
"The Israelis hit Lebanese privately owned factories on Tuesday, including a dairy farm! These targets had absolutely nothing to do with Hizbullah, and were not military targets. These strikes are war crimes and part of a continuing Israeli campaign to ensure that Lebanon is economically poor and weak for decades to come. Israel switched gears in its military campaign against Lebanon Monday and Tuesday, launching a series of debilitating air strikes against privately owned factories throughout the country and dealing a devastating blow to an economy already paralyzed by a week of hits on residential areas and crucial infrastructure. The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country's largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant - have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Targets Milk, Medicine Factories’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 18, 2006).

"Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon – smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads, and the occasional refugee convoy – has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Where Are Bush's Critics Now?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9328 July 19, 2006).

"Israel's lethal bombing is ubiquitous - raining hell over family homes in the Bekaa Valley, over the Liban Lait milk factory on the road to Baalbek, over a Greek Orthodox church, over civilian trucks carrying rice and sugar near the Christian village of Zaleh, over a civil-defense building in Tyre, over a paper mill, over a packaging firm, over a pharmaceutical plant, over the Lake Qaraoun dam, over bridges, water reservoirs, electric plants, gas stations, ambulances, even over Beirut's main Christian neighborhood." (Pepe Escobar ‘Lebanon left for dead’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG21Ak01.html July 21, 2006).

State Infrastructure.
""A senior General Staff officer told Ha'aretz that for the first time since the fighting began, Israel plans to attack strategic infrastructure targets and symbols of the Lebanese government […] 'we are now in a process of renewed escalation. We will continue hitting everything that moves in Hezbollah – but we will also hit strategic civilian infrastructure.' […] IDF will recommend an additional significant expansion of the operation, including the conquest of most of Lebanon south of the Litani River, including the area around Tyre, and a significant increase in air strikes on infrastructure targets. 'It could be that at the end of the story, Lebanon will be dark for a few years,' said one." (Ha'aretz, Aug. 7, 2006)." (Quoted in (Ran HaCohen ‘The End of Lebanon? http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=9496 August 8, 2006).

Religious Buildings.
"Among the important military targets Israel bombed were a Greek Orthodox church …" (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel, Lebanon: Defense Against the Black Arts’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash24.htm July 24, 2006).

"All the same, Sidon is still a danger zone. On Sunday morning, Israeli planes bombed the Imam Jafer Sadiq Mosque in the heart of the city, as the mosque is administrated by Hezbollah sympathizers." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘More power to the resistance’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH01Ak04.html August 1, 2006).

"In Zibqin itself, I found one especially poignant ruin: the bombed remains of a mosque well over 1,000 years old which the Lebanese believe contains the body of Zein Ali Yaqin, son of the Prophet Yacoub - Jacob in the Jewish faith - and grandson of the Prophet Ibrahim, or Abraham. Two of Abraham's sons - Yacoub and Ismail (Ishmael) - define the split between Islam and Judaism, the former believing God told Abraham to sacrifice Ismail and the latter contending it was Yacoub/Jacob who was to be sacrificed. Zein Ali Yaqin is thus of precious Jewish lineage - yet the casket containing his mortal remains actually moved on the floor of the shrine as Israeli bombs fell outside." (Robert Fisk ‘Hizbollah's reconstruction of Lebanon is winning the loyalty of disaffected Shia’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1221306.ece August 24 2006).

"The St. Gregorius Church in Rachaya al-Fokhar suffered a direct hit … Ten civilians who had taken refuge inside the Greek Orthodox Church in Rachaya al-Fokhar were wounded in an attack." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Targets Milk, Medicine Factories’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 18, 2006).

Cutting off Lebanon from the Outside World and Starving it into Submission.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.
"Israel is waging a "war of starvation" on Lebanon's civilians in an effort to force the government to agree to Israel's demands, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said in a statement issued Friday. "The Israeli enemy's bombing of bridges and roads is aimed at tightening the blockade on the Lebanese, cutting communications between them and starving them," Lahoud said. "It is a war of starvation launched by Israel against Lebanon," he said. "It is an aggression that has exceeded Israel's declared objectives. Israel has now decided to destroy Lebanon."" (Lebanon: Israel wages war of starvation’ http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15198153.htm August 04, 2006).

Even a week after the ceasefire had come into operation the jews were still blockading the country, "LBC satellite news reports that Lebanon is losing $3 million a day in forfeited agricultural and retail business, since no raw materials can be imported into Lebanon at the moment." (Juan Cole ‘EU to send 7000 Peacekeepers to Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 26, 2006); "The illegal Israeli blockade of civilian Lebanese ports continues to inflict massive damage on Lebanon and on ordinary Lebanese from all walks of life. The United States more or less supports this strangling of the little country." (Juan Cole ‘Israeli Blockade Strangles Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 27, 2006).

Ethnic Cleansing.
The Destruction of People’s Homes.
"The Daily Star reports, "Israeli fighter-bombers also destroyed nearly 20 residential homes and buildings in Lebanon in the early morning hours of Wednesday and continued air raids in the South, the Bekaa and Beirut's southern suburbs. At least 12 Lebanese, including children, were killed and 30 wounded in an Israeli air strike that destroyed several homes in the Southern village of Srifa, residents said." In fact, Israel "flattened" several Lebanese villages in the south with indiscriminate air strikes. One entire village section of 15 homes was destroyed, with a high civilian death toll. It is not possible that all 15 civilian residences were legitimate military targets. This is just state terror."" (Quoted in Juan Cole ‘Israel Kills 57 in Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 20, 2006).

The Destruction of whole Villages and Towns.
"The Israeli attacks were mainly concentrated on the Bekaa district, as Israeli warplanes launched missiles at the towns of Zahle, Baalbek, Rachaya al-Fokhar and others. The St. Gregorius Church in Rachaya al-Fokhar suffered a direct hit, as did the Lake Qaraoun Dam and the ambulance donated by the Emirates in Dahr al-Baydar. Dozens of civilians were killed and wounded in the attacks. Over 30 civilians were killed in Israeli air strikes against Lebanon on Tuesday. Ten civilians who had taken refuge inside the Greek Orthodox Church in Rachaya al-Fokhar were wounded in an attack. Lebanese security sources said Israel had used phosphorous missiles in the attack, an internationally banned weapon. Some people just don't like their neighbors to have nice things. "The Israelis hit Lebanese privately owned factories on Tuesday, including a dairy farm! These targets had absolutely nothing to do with Hizbullah, and were not military targets. These strikes are war crimes and part of a continuing Israeli campaign to ensure that Lebanon is economically poor and weak for decades to come." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Targets Milk, Medicine Factories’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 18, 2006).

"Israeli minister of justice, Haim Ramon, issued a stern warning only days ago that a large area in south Lebanon was regarded by his government effectively as a free-fire zone, advocating indiscriminate bombing of villages inside it to ease the so-far unsuccessful advance of the Israeli army.[2] "These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hizbollah are hiding and from which they are operating," he said, adding that, since Israel had ordered Lebanese civilians to leave the area, "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbollah."" (Omar Barghouti ‘The Massacre at Qana’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouti08012006.html August 01 2006).

"Israel's aerial torment of a population entirely lacking in air defenses and even proper air raid shelters has now killed some 900 people, the overwhelming majority of them civilians, and about a third of them children. It has displaced almost a million people from their homes. It has devastated Lebanon's civilian infrastructure. It has reduced entire towns in the south-including Bint Jbeil, once home to 30,000 people - to rubble." (Saree Makdisi ‘Time to Call It Quits’ http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi08032006.html August 3, 2006).

The Destruction of all Buildings in Southern Lebanon.
"One hope the Israeli hawks appear to entertain is that they can permanently depopulate strips Lebanon south of the Litani river. Since most Shiites vote Hizbullah and offer political support and cover to it, fewer people means fewer assets for the party-militia. This project would require the total destruction of large numbers of villages and the permanent displacement of their inhabitants north to Beirut. That is why the massacre at Qana occurred. The Israelis had bombed Qana 80 times. They were destroying all of its buildings. Therefore, of course, they destroyed the building where dozens of children and families were hiding. This tactic is both collective punishment and ethnic cleansing all at once. It is not only a matter, as the Israelis claim, of hitting Hizbullah rocket launchers. They are destroying all of the buildings." (Juan Cole ‘What is Hizbullah?’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 31, 2006).

Forcing Civilians to Flee …
"If the reports coming out of Lebanon can be believed, the Israelis are only sometimes striking known Hizbullah safe houses or facilities or missile emplacements. A lot of their bombardment appears aimed at punishing civilian populations and forcing them north to Beirut. Such an approach would help explain the high number of civilian casualties. That is, there may be an element of ethnic cleansing in Israeli tactics." (Juan Cole ‘Israel Invades Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 18, 2006). Cole was even more convinced about his conclusion a few days later, "Not satisfied to have made 500,000 out of 3.8 million Lebanese homeless already, and to have chased over 100,000 out of their own country to Syria, AP says that on Thursday 'Israel warned hundreds of thousands of people to flee southern Lebanon "immediately ..."' I repeat, this is nothing less than an ethnic cleansing of the Shiites of southern Lebanon, an assault on an entire civilian population's way of life." (Juan Cole ‘Israelis Bomb Beirut, Baalbak Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 21, 2006).

… then Attacking them while they’re Fleeing.
"For the second time in eight days, the Israelis committed a war crime yesterday. They ordered the villagers of Taire, near the border, to leave their homes and then - as their convoy of cars and minibuses obediently trailed northwards - the Israeli air force fired a missile into the rear minibus, killing three refugees and seriously wounding 13 other civilians. The rocket that killed them is believed to have been a Hellfire missile made by Lockheed Martin in Florida. Nine days ago, the Israeli army ordered the inhabitants of a neighboring village, Marwaheen, to leave their homes and then fired rockets into one of their evacuation trucks, blasting the women and children inside to their deaths. And this is the same Israeli air force which was praised last week by one of Israel's greatest defenders - Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz - because it "takes extraordinary steps to minimize civilian casualties"." (Robert Fisk ‘Israelis Bomb Fleeing Villagers’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Fisk07242006.html July 24, 2006).

"Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon "was apparently not asked about the IDF’s practice of blowing up the cars full of civilians fleeing south Lebanon." (James Bovard ‘Israeli Justice Minister: IDF Entitled to Kill Everyone in South Lebanon’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/07/27/israeli-justice-minister-idf-entitled-to-kill-everyone-in-south-lebanon/ July 27th, 2006).

"Elsewhere, two mortar rounds hit a convoy of vehicles carrying civilians escaping the violence in southern Lebanon." (US 'outrage' over Israeli claims’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5223940.stm July 28, 2006).

"Israeli forces have repeatedly targeted cars and trucks across Lebanon since the start of the Israeli offensive on the country on July 12 ..." (Israel pulls back from flashpoint Hezbollah town’ http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=135431 July 29, 2006).

"My notebook overflows with reports of civilian deaths. On July 15, Israeli fire killed 21 people fleeing from Marhawin, including 13 children; no weapons, no Hezbollah nearby. On July 16, an Israeli bomb killed 11 civilians in Aitaroun, including seven members of a Canadian-Lebanese family on vacation; again, no Hezbollah, no weapons. On July 19, at least 26 civilians were killed in Srifa when Israeli bombs flattened an entire neighborhood; no evidence of military targets. On July 23, at least seven civilians were killed when Israeli warplanes bombed dozens of cars trying to flee the south after receiving Israeli instructions to evacuate immediately; no indication of weapons convoys in the vicinity. The list goes on, with about 500 civilians killed so far." (Peter Bouckaert ‘For Israel, Innocent Civilians Are Fair Game’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bouckaert08052006.html August 5/6, 2006).

"So if you are too frightened to flee southern Lebanon, or are sick, injured or too poor to pay the more than $1,000 it now costs to get out, you are a "terrorist" and eligible for attack. As for those who heeded the Israeli warnings to flee, the roads are littered with bombed civilian cars, many with white flags still attached to their windows. After all, the Israelis tell us, they could have been transporting arms. Israel is prefabricating excuses to justify killing civilians." (Peter Bouckaert ‘For Israel, Innocent Civilians Are Fair Game’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bouckaert08052006.html August 5/6, 2006).

"Israeli aircraft fired at least five rockets at a convoy of hundreds of cars carrying people fleeing south Lebanon on Friday, killing at least two people and wounding eight, witnesses and rescue workers said." Mideast peace deal reached at U.N’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14258758/ August 11, 2006).

"The Globe and Mail describes some other Israeli activities on the eve of "peace": 'In one of the most dramatic development in the fighting Friday, an Israeli unmanned plane fired at the convoy, which included a 350 joint Lebanese army and police force as well as 500 civilian cars. They left Marjayoun after hours of U.N. mediated negotiations which succeeding in receiving Israeli assurances for the convoy's safety. The attack came as the convoy was en route from Jib Jannin to Kefraya in the south of the Bekaa valley, security officials said. They said most of the casualties were civilians. "The Israeli forces had been told in advance of the convoy's passage, and had given it the green light," UNIFIL spokesman Milos Strugar said.' (Quoted in Juan Cole ‘Israeli Response to UN Ceasefire Call’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 12, 2006).

"There are few marks on the road where the missiles hit the innocents of Marjayoun. But there are the memories of what happened immediately after the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people after dark on 11 August: a 16-year old Christian girl screaming "I want my Daddy" as her father's mutilated body lay a few metres away from her; the town mukhtar discovering that his wife, Collette, had been decapitated by one of the Israeli missiles; the Lebanese Red Cross volunteer who went into the darkness of wartime Lebanon to give water and sandwiches to the refugees and was cut down by another missile, and whose friends could not reach him to save his life. There are those who break down when they recall the massacre at Joub Jannine - and there are the Israelis who gave permission to the refugees to leave Marjayoun, who specified what roads they should use, and who then attacked them with pilotless, missile-firing drone aircraft. Five days after being asked to account for the tragedy, they had last night still not bothered to explain how they killed at least seven refugees and wounded 36 others just three days before a UN ceasefire came into effect. Who flew the drones? An Israeli soldier of the invasion force? A nameless officer in the Israel Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv? The Israelis knew a civilian convoy was on the road. Yet they sent their pilotless machines to attack it. Why? Last night, the Israeli Defence Ministry had not responded to inquiries from reporters who asked for the answer last Friday." (Robert Fisk ‘Untold story of the massacre of Marjayoun leaves blame on both sides of the border’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1221078.ece August 23 2006).

The Jews are doing to Lebanese Citizens what the American Military did to Iraqi Soldiers Fleeing Kuwait.
"Throughout the day, Qana villagers and civil defence workers dug through the ruins of the building with spades and with their hands, tearing at the muck until they found one body after another still dressed in colorful clothes. In one section of the rubble, they found what was left of a single room with 18 bodies inside. Twelve of the dead were women. All across southern Lebanon now, you find scenes like this, not so grotesque in scale, perhaps, but just as terrible, for the people of these villages are terrified to leave and terrified to stay. The Israelis had dropped leaflets over Qana, ordering its people to leave their homes. Yet twice now since Israel's onslaught began, the Israelis have ordered villagers to leave their houses and then attacked them with aircraft as they obeyed the Israeli instructions and fled. There are at least 3,000 Shia Muslims trapped in villages between Qlaya and Aiteroun close to the scene of Israel's last military incursion at Bint Jbeil and yet none of them can leave without fear of dying on the roads. Khalil Shalhoub, who survived amid the wreckage in Qana yesterday, said that his family and the Hashims were just too "terrified" to take the road out of the village, which has been attacked by aircraft for more than two weeks. The seven-mile highway between Qana and Tyre is littered with civilian homes in ruins and burnt-out family cars. On Thursday, the Israeli Army's Al-Mashriq radio, which broadcasts into southern Lebanon, told residents that their villages would be "totally destroyed" if missiles were fired from them. But anyone who has watched Israel's bombing these past two weeks knows that, in many cases, the Israelis do not know the location in which the Hizbollah are firing missiles, and when they do they frequently miss their targets." (Robert Fisk ‘Israel Kills 34 Kids in Qana’ http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07312006.html July 31, 2006).

Mass Slaughter of Lebanese Civilians.
Culling Livestock.
"Mr Gillerman said "something very important was missing" from Mr Annan's speech: any mention of terrorism. Hizbullah were "ruthless indiscriminate animals", he told reporters. "We must first address the core and the root cause of why these hostilities started in the first place, and who started them ... If there's a ceasefire while this cesspool continues to fester, we'll leave Hizbullah with the capability to do time and time again what they've done this time."" (Oliver Burkeman in New York and Ewen MacAskill "Israel angry, US wary as Annan peace plan calls for ceasefire" http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1825727,00.html July 21, 2006).

"In the article, published in the ultra-Orthodox newspaper "Hassidic World", author Yitzhak Ben-Zvi writes that "the Arabs are a people similar to donkeys… they are a vile nation of savages… they have a great desire to murder and are even worse than the Nazi enemy."" (‘Haredi writer accused of racism, slander’ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295985,00.html August 26, 2006).

All Civilians are Terrorists.
"Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon "said that in order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops moved in. He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter. "All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said. Ramon made these comments on Israeli Army radio. He was apparently not asked about the IDF’s practice of blowing up the cars full of civilians fleeing south Lebanon. Ramon has made stark the standards that the Israelis are using, and there is no excuse for any American politician or citizen to continue denying that the Israelis are not intentionally targeting civilians en masse." (James Bovard ‘Israeli Justice Minister: IDF Entitled to Kill Everyone in South Lebanon’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/07/27/israeli-justice-minister-idf-entitled-to-kill-everyone-in-south-lebanon/ July 27th, 2006).

Squashing Insects.
"We are way past the argument of whether this or that is an actual Hizbollah target or not. Israel is showing once again that this is a war on a nation and its worthless insect inhabitants. The stench of racism, spite, and outrage has long ago surpassed the infamous oil slick." (Roger Assaf ‘Adjusting the Heroic Commando Raid Story’ http://www.counterpunch.org/assaf08042006.html August 4, 2006).

"You can observe three important things simultaneously in the Middle East: One, Israel's total disregard for the lives and property of the Arab people; two, the effectiveness of the Israeli propaganda machine; and three, the utterly craven support for Israel by the U.S. government." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9385 July 22, 2006).

War Crimes against Civilians.
Human Rights Watch, after extensive investigation, has concluded that the Israeli military is guilty of war crimes. HRW says: "Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes." The 50-page report, "Fatal Strikes: Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon," analyzes almost two dozen cases of Israeli air and artillery attacks on civilian homes and vehicles. Of the 153 dead civilians named in the report, 63 are children. More than 500 people have been killed in Lebanon by Israeli fire since fighting began on July 12, most of them civilians. "The pattern of attacks shows the Israeli military’s disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Our research shows that Israel’s claim that Hezbollah fighters are hiding among civilians does not explain, let alone justify, Israel’s indiscriminate warfare." HRW's investigations do not bear out the excuse that the high civilian casualty rate is because of Hizbullah hiding among civilians: "Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians. In one case, an Israeli air strike on July 13 destroyed the home of a cleric known to have sympathy for Hezbollah but who was not known to have taken any active part in the hostilities. Even if the IDF considered him a legitimate target (and Human Rights Watch has no evidence that he was), the strike killed him, his wife, their 10 children and the family’s Sri Lankan maid. On July 16, an Israeli aircraft fired on a civilian home in the village of Aitaroun, killing 11 members of the al-Akhrass family, among them seven Canadian-Lebanese dual nationals who were vacationing in the village when the war began. Human Rights Watch independently interviewed three villagers who vigorously denied that the family had any connection to Hezbollah. Among the victims were children aged one, three, five and seven." The Israeli government has blamed Hezbollah for the high civilian casualty toll in Lebanon, insisting that Hezbollah fighters have hidden themselves and their weapons among the civilian population. However, in none of the cases of civilian deaths documented in the report is there evidence to suggest that Hezbollah was operating in or around the area during or prior to the attack.' (Juan Cole ‘HRW: Israel Guilty of War Crimes’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_08_01_juanricole_archive.html August 03, 2006).

Lebensraum: The Jews’ Depopulation of Southern Lebanon.
Many commentators believe the Jewish military was intent on carrying out a Lebensraum policy in southern Lebanon.

Paul Craig Roberts.
"Gentle reader, do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Shame of Being an American’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9381 July 22, 2006).

Eugene Robinson.
"Destroying the Beirut airport, blasting communications towers into oblivion and cleansing southern Lebanon of its civilian population are not measures the world will see as an attack on Hezbollah terrorists." (Eugene Robinson ‘It's Disproportionate’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400810_pf.html July 25, 2006).

Patrick Seale.
"Its strategy in Lebanon seems to be to empty the south of its population, driving the Shi'ites out of their traditional homeland, where they have lived for centuries, in much the same way as it continues its pitiless onslaught on Gaza. In Lebanon, some 600,000 people have already been displaced, while the entire country is being brutalized and strangled." (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14191.htm July 25, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"They want to set up a sanitized "zone" cleansed of all Arabs, all Muslims, all possible resistance, the northern equivalent of the great Wall of Separation they're building to keep the Palestinians from their historic lands." (Justin Raimondo ‘The Return of the Neocons’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9440 July 31, 2006).

Alexander Cockburn.
"Israel is systematically trying to destroy Lebanon as a functioning social and economic entity, cleanse the south and reoccupy up to the Litani River." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Triumph of Crackpot Realism’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312006.html July 31, 2006).

Summaries.
Tom Engelhardt.
"With the highest-tech American precision-guided and bunker-busting bombs, the Israelis have been launching air strike after strike, thousands of them, in that country. They have hit an international airport, the nation's largest milk factories; a major food factory; aid convoys; Red Cross ambulances; a UN observer post; a power plant; apartment complexes; villages because they house or support the enemy; branches of banks because they might facilitate Hezbollah finances; the telecommunications system because of the messages that might pass along it; highways because they might transport weapons to the enemy; bridges because they might be crossed by those transporting weapons; a lighthouse in Beirut harbor for reasons unknown; trucks because they might be transporting those weapons (though they might also be transporting vegetables); families who just happen to be jammed into cars or minivans fleeing at the urging of the attackers who have turned at least 20 percent of all Lebanese (and probably many more) into refugees, while creating a "landscape of death" (in the phrase of the superb Washington Post reporter Anthony Shadid) in the southern part of the country. In this process, civilian casualties have mounted steadily – assumedly far beyond the figure of just over 400 now regularly being cited in our press, because Lebanon has no way to search the rubble of its bombed buildings for the dead; nor, right now, the time and ability to do an accurate count of those who died more or less in the open." (Tom Engelhardt ‘Barbarism From Above’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=9433 July 29, 2006).

Paul Craig Roberts.
"Does it make you a Proud American that "your" president gave Israel the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life depends? Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet?" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Shame of Being an American’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9381 July 22, 2006).

The Bile of Western Civilization: Jewish support for the Jos’s Slaughter of Lebanese Civilians.
Despite the Jos’s atrocities against Lebanese civilians, the Jewish lobby in America has been doing its best to encourage Jews in America to voice their support these war crimes. Only Jews in America, rather than American Jews, could support the Jos’s onslaught on the Lebanese people and infrastructure.

"Heads of the film industry in Hollywood and prominent movie stars have signed a statement blaming Hamas and Hizbullah for terror activities in the Middle East, the war in Lebanon, and for harming innocents. The statement said that if terror around the world is not stopped, chaos will rule and innocents will continue to die. The statement called for terror to be stopped at any price. Some 84 senior film industry members signed the statement, published in the Hollywood Reporter newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, and the Variety newspaper. Among the signatories:
Sylvester Stallone,
James Woods,
Bruce Willis,
director Ridley Scott,
tennis player Serena Williams,
Nicole Kidman,
Michael Douglas,
Dennis Hopper,
William Hurt,
Josh Malina,
Kelly Preston,
Danny DeVito,
Don Johnson,
and media tycoon Rupert Murdock." (Yitzhak Benhorin ‘Hollywood stars blast Nasrallah’ http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3292279,00.html August 18, 2006).

"The Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles has been active since the start of fighting with an aim of drafting Hollywood stars to back Israel. During the war, Ehud Danoch, the consul general, initiated a mission aimed at enlisting support for Israel in Hollywood. The team was comprised of Israeli directors and producers in Hollywood:
Arnon Milchan,
David Matalon,
Avi Arad,
Danny Dimbort and
Avi Lerner." (Yitzhak Benhorin ‘Hollywood stars blast Nasrallah’ http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3292279,00.html August 18, 2006).

‘Actor Adam Sandler was present at one of the many briefings the consul general gave this week. At the end of the briefing, Sandler announced that he would personally donate USD 100,000 to the children of the north and south, and about 400 Playstation games purchased by the actor are expected to be transferred to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem in the coming days." (Yitzhak Benhorin ‘Hollywood stars blast Nasrallah’ http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3292279,00.html August 18, 2006).

"Nicole Kidman has made a public stand against terrorism. The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper." (Kidman condemns Hamas, Hezbollah’ http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20157470-5005961,00.html August 17, 2006).

"A who's who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad. The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt. Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names. Other Hollywood powerplayers supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban." (Kidman condemns Hamas, Hezbollah’ http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20157470-5005961,00.html August 17, 2006).

Jews keeping up the Pretence of America’s Global Empire.

2006-07-23T03:55:00.000-07:00

Updated October 01, 2006

A Global Jewish Empire.
The jewish attack on lebanon in the summer 2006 provides a case study of the way that american and jewish politicians are conspiring to cover up jewish dominance over american politics. The american empire is just a smokescreen for the global jewish empire.

America is undoubtedly a military hyper-power but this does not mean that, politically, it is controlled by wasps. After all, it was the jewish lobby, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish dominated congress, and the jewish dominated bush administration, whose combined political power pushed the country into a proxy zionist invasion of iraq even though this ran counter to america’s geostrategic interests. America has suffered catastrophically, both politically and militarily, as a result of this invasion. The jews are currently pushing america into an attack on iran which will undermine america’s interests in the region on an even greater catastrophic scale.

Both america and the jos have a vested political interest in continuing to sustain the fantasy of an american empire and of the jos’s subservience to this empire. American politicians don’t want the world to ridicule them for possessing a military hyper-power whilst being the servants of a tiny nation of hysterical, paranoid racists who, to maintain their ethnic purity, surround themselves with apartheid walls, buffer zones, and security fences. Equally, neither the jos nor its jewish agents in america want the world to know they control the bush administration because then they would be blamed for the economic and military catastrophes america is suffering as a result of its occupation of afghanistan and iraq.

Sustaining the Fantasy of America’s Imperial Power.
During the jews’ massive onslaught against lebanese civilians in summer 2006, the jos maintained the illusion of american global domination by pretending to confer with the bush administration as to how long it could prosecute the war. Virtually all commentators in the western media, most of which are dominated by jews, talked about the bush administration giving the jos a green light to continue the blitz. "On the eve of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Jerusalem, senior officials believe Israel has an American nod to continue operations against Hezbollah at least until next Sunday." (Aluf Benn, Shmuel Rosner and Shlomo Shamir ‘Senior officials believe U.S. will give Israel a week to complete military offensive in Lebanon’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741445.html July 23, 2006).

The hypothesis that after the jos launched its attack on lebanese civilians it asked the bush administration for a green light to continue the war, was shown to be a fabrication when it was revealed that america had foreknowledge of the attack. However, this revelation itself was only a variation of the green light hypothesis. Some reporters pointed out that the jos had given american officials a powerpoint presentation of the military strategy it would implement if america gave it permission for an attack. Others pretended that olmert had obtained bush’s permission for an attack when the two leaders held their first meeting. "At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's YnetNews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work. It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a means of dramatically reducing the risk of an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval. That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by the Israel's YnetNews, but not by U.S. news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied." Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to wreak havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive. The Israeli plan may have given Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld new ammunition for advocating a strike on Iran's nuclear sites." (Gareth Porter ‘Was Israel's Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=9505 August 9, 2006).

Another variation of the green light theory was that the jos’s attack on lebanese civilians was a proxy war on both sides. "Another U.S. official, who spoke about the Middle East turmoil on condition of anonymity, was more blunt. In Lebanon, the United States and Iran "are conducting a proxy war," he said, with Israel fighting for one side and Hezbollah for the other. "It is in our interest to see Hezbollah defeated," he said." (Doyle McManus ‘Iran Is Bush's Target in Lebanon’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes307.html July 30, 2006). Even the stepford jew george bush employed this analysis, "The stakes are larger than just Lebanon," the president told reporters Friday after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "The root cause of the problem is you've got Hezbollah that is armed and willing to fire rockets into Israel; a Hezbollah … that I firmly believe is backed by Iran and encouraged by Iran."" (Doyle McManus ‘Iran Is Bush's Target in Lebanon’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes307.html July 30, 2006).

One of the global jewish empire’s courtiers contributed to the green light deception by stating that the jos’s inability to crush hezbollah meant it was failing to live up to its strategic role as an american asset in the middle east. "So it is not surprising that neocons like Charles Krauthammer are angry and confused. In his unique form of Israel bashing, Krauthammer in a column in The Washington Post blamed Israel for not playing its part as a "strategic asset" of the United States in the Middle East, based on his own America-and-Israel-defeat-the-bad-guys script. Suggesting that America had given Israel the green light to attack Hizballah in Lebanon not as a favor to Israel, but as an act of clear [U.S.] self-interest, Krauthammer explained: "America needs a decisive Hizballah defeat." Hence, it was "Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron." The United States "has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen," counting on "Israel's ability to do the job." And "it has been disappointed." It seems that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well."" (Leon Hadar ‘Neocons Amid Lebanon’s Rubble: A Challenge to Krauthammer's Israel-as-Strategic-Asset Argument’ http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12062 September 14, 2006).

In effect krauthammer was carving out a juicy political role for bush to play on the world stage. And bush duly grasped the opportunity to please his jewish masters. "According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated. The Israeli army has not "delivered the goods". Bush sent them into war believing that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced American arms, will "finish the job" in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hizbullah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken Iran and perhaps also open the way to "regime change" in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry." (Uri Avnery ‘Knife in the Back’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032006.html August 3, 2006).

Just how ludicrous this green light hypothesis has become was its extension to one of the jewish empire’s lesser muppets. "Slow news: When the Israeli army attacked the West Bank in 2002, flattening homes, killing civilians, and trashing homes and museums, Blair was forewarned and gave "the green light." He was also warned about the recent Israeli attack on Gaza and on Lebanon." (John Pilger ‘No News Is Slow News’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=9703 September 15, 2006).

The jos never asked the bush administration for a green light to attack lebanese civilians. It just informed jewish financed political leaders around the world what was going to happen so they could start rehearsing their lies for the political management of the war.

Déjà vu in Lebanon.
Ironically, in 1982 the jews had pressured their wasp slaves into protecting the jewish military during its first major invasion of lebanon. The wasps ended up suffering serious casualties for their jewish masters. "On September 16-18, 1982 Israeli forces allowed Lebanese Christian militias into the Sabra and Chatila Palestinian camps where they butchered men, women and children. President Ronald Reagan sent a new contingent of 1,800 Marines to Beirut, joined by 1,500 French Foreign Legion paratroopers, 1,400 Italian troops and, a few months later, a smaller British force. It was officially neutral, but meant to support the Lebanese government under President Amin Gemayel, who was allied with the US and Israel. But the Lebanese government was seen as Christian-dominated by many. On April18, 1983, a suicide bomber destroyed the US embassy in Beirut. In May the Israelis withdrew from around the capital. When Druze fighters drove the Lebanese army out of the mountains it was supported by gunfire from US vessels offshore and American aircraft. The US was deemed to have joined the Lebanese war on the side of the Christians and Israel's allies. Retaliation came when the US Marines and French paratroopers were slaughtered. (241 Marines died after their barracks were hit by a suicide bomber on 23 October 1983). The US blamed Hizbollah, Syria and Iran for the suicide attacks. By December the US was attacking Syrian anti-aircraft positions in the Bekaa valley, but lost two planes shot down. In February 2004 President Reagan ordered the surviving US troops out of Lebanon." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Bush and Blair Risk Repeating the 1982 Fiasco’ http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick07292006.html July 29/30 2006).

Many americans blamed hezbollah for the deaths of american marines but, in reality, if the jews hadn’t forced president reagan into providing military assistance for their illegal invasion then the marines wouldn’t have suffered such a tragedy. Twenty five years later, the wasps still don’t seem to have learnt any lessons about the dangers of protecting their racist jewish masters. Once again the wasps seem willing to sacrifice their troops and treasure by contributing to an international force in lebanon which is intended not to protect the lebanese people but to stop the lebanese from retaliating against unprovoked attacks by the jos. There is little the supposedly civilized western world will not do to protect an apartheid, colonialist, state. Incidentally, after the loss of 240 marines in 1982, americans might have expected the jews to be grateful to america for protecting them militarily in lebanon. But this was far from being the case. Jewish leaders despised reagan for failing to use america’s military might to force lebanon into becoming a jos dependency. And twenty years later they all boycotted his state funeral.

The Long History of the Jos’s Defiance of American Presidents.
Contrary to the all pervasive propaganda that the jos is an american colony, the reality is that jewish leaders have never taken the blindest bit of notice of what their supposed american masters have ordered them to do. When american presidents try to force the jos to obey their orders, jewish leaders ignore, or even publicly humiliate, them. The following are a couple of examples which provide the background to the jos’s recent attack on lebanon.

In 1982, "Sharon’s forces killed maybe 20,000 people, and let Lebanese Christians slaughter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Chatilla. The killing got so bad that even Ronald Reagan awoke from his slumbers and called Tel Aviv to tell Israel to stop. Sharon gave the White House the finger by bombing Beirut at the precise times - 2.42 and 3.38 - of two UN resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestine." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html July 21, 2006).

In 2002, on four separate occasions, bush II ordered sharon to stop the jews’ psychotic demolition of jenin. On each occasion, sharon not only ignored bush he went out of his way to publicly humiliate him. He called bush "a chamberlain". The jewish lobby in america even got their congressional livestock to write a letter to bush criticizing him for trying to curb sharon’s military objectives seemingly not being bothered that they were supporting jewish war crimes. Eventually, bush surrendered by announcing that sharon, a terrorist and war criminal, was "a man of peace".

Quite why bush II decided to challenge his jewish masters when he must have known he would end up being humiliated is a mystery. In 1990 the jos requested $10 billion in loan guarantees from the bush I administration to provide for the resettlement of russian jews. Bush I sought to delay this gigantic tribute payment and was faced with uproar from the jewish lobby. He complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me." Bush’s attempt to curb the jos and its political agents in america "would prove to be his epitaph." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). The jewish lobby and the jewish dominated american media punished bush I by sabotaging his chances of getting re-elected in the presidential elections in 1992.

When bush II was elected president in 2000, he was determined not to repeat his father’s mistake. And yet despite this bitter family experience he still challenged sharon directly over the invasion of jenin. Perhaps he’d just got carried away by the propaganda that, as president of the united states, he was the leader of the world’s sole hyper-power and thus world’s most powerful politician. However, once sharon had put him in his place, bush was clever enough to realize that if he wanted to win the next presidential election he had to try and make amends for his mistake of offending the jews by proclaiming sharon as a man of peace.

This was the political context to the jews’ 2006 attack on lebanon. Bush knew it was pointless to try and stop the jos from attacking lebanon or confronting the jos over its grossly disproportionate attacks on lebanese civilians because he would either be ignored or humiliated. He knew he could do nothing to stop the jews even though most of the world condemned him for supporting their war crimes. So this time he made a virtue out of his political powerlessness by claiming to give the jews a green light for their military operation. It was much more politically beneficial for him to be perceived as giving the orders for what the jews were doing, and be heralded as the instigator of the war, rather than challenging the jews and being publicly humiliated. Bush was politically astute over lebanon in a way he hadn’t been over jenin.

Jewish propaganda in america is so overwhelming that despite the jos’s long history of ignoring and defying american presidents, the fantasy persists that the jos is a rock solid american colony. Contrary to the propaganda that the jos is america’s asset in the middle east, the reality is that the jos has never looked upon itself as an american asset and it has no intention of acting as such an asset. It has never sacrificed any of its troops for america even whilst demanding that american troops ought to be sacrificed for the benefit of the jos. If america was the empire and the jos a mere asset then jewish troops would be dying for america – but this has never happened. On the contrary, it has been american troops dying for the jos thereby suggesting the only global empire these days is jewish. If jewish leaders can get away with the massive deception that the jos is america’s closest ally, without having to do anything to live up to this role, then why shouldn’t they? This clearly indicates the subservience of american politicians to the jos.

Bush's Powerlessness.
Perhaps these historical examples of the jos defying american presidents may not be regarded as convincing evidence of jewish power. So let’s imagine what would happen if president bush had tried to prevent, or call a halt to, the jos’s psychotic war against lebanese citizens. There are four main reasons bush would have been unable to have stopped the jos’s warmongering.

Firstly, a significant proportion of the bush administration is composed of traitorous, dual passport, jews whose main loyalty is to the jos not america. They promote policies for the benefit of the jos even though they undermine america’s strategic interests – for example when they fabricated evidence to manipulate america into an invasion of iraq. They are more than powerful enough to discourage bush from acting against the jos’s interests.

Secondly, the american congress is composed primarily of politicians who have been bought and paid for by the jewish lobby like cattle in a livestock market. "The place is about 98 percent bought and paid for by the Lobby." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Triumph of Crackpot Realism’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312006.html July 31, 2006). The jewish dominated members of congress give their assenting moos when legislation, usually written by the jewish fundamentalist organization aipac, comes before them for their approval. "On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8. AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."" (Ari Berman ‘AIPAC's Hold’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/aipacs_hold July 29, 2006). Fancy america, the supposed leader of the civilized world, refusing to offer innocent lebanese civilians any moral protection. Bush would have faced a huge rebellion from congress if he’d tried to stop the jos’s warmongering.

Thirdly, the republican party is financed largely by jewish billionaires and many of its key activists are jewish fundamentalists – as is the case in the democratic party. The two parties are now in intense competition with each other to show their jewish masters who gives the jos the most support in the hope of receiving the biggest jewish bribes. Bush would have faced a huge backlash from the republican party if he’d tried to stop the jos’s warmongering. The republican party is more concerned with promoting the interests of the jos than it is in supporting its own president.

Fourthly, america’s media is dominated by jews. The jewish-dominated media would have launched a massive propaganda attack on bush if he’d opposed the lebanese war. It would have turned public opinion against him and thus jeopardized the republican party’s chances of winning the november 2006 congressional elections. "This supine indulgence of Olmert, moreover, suggests Western leaders suspend common sense when dealing with Israel. Olmert's claim that Israel will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Hezbollah is nonsense, as only Israel's occupation and virtual annexation of Lebanon could raise this goal even to the level of a slim possibility. Olmert and his cabinet know this and are relying on the cowardly fear Western leaders have of their pro-Israeli voters – aren't there U.S. congressional elections in about 90 days? – to give Israel's military a free hand for as long as possible." (Michael Scheuer ‘Doing bin Laden's Work for Him’ http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=9369 July 21, 2006).

In conclusion, america’s jewish elite controls all the country’s main political institutions. It owns the first, second, and fourth, estates in america. It is the country’s ruling elite. It takes its orders from the jos not the american people. The jewish lobby in america is an agent of a foreign power no different from the way that in the 1930s and 1940s communist parties in the west took their orders from russia. The jews didn’t need a green light from america to attack lebanon because they control the country’s political system.

America’s Subservience to the Jos.
America’s role in the 2006 war against lebanon was simply to provide whatever the jews needed to fight their war of choice. It provided the fighter planes and munitions to enable the jews to slaughter lebanese civilians and lebanon’s infrastructure, and even provided the jos with the aviation fuel to enable the jos’s fighter jets to bomb innocent people. "A striking aspect of the crisis is, indeed, America's total political, diplomatic and strategic support for Israel - even to the point of rushing to give it $300 million of aviation fuel with which to continue smashing Lebanon!" (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14191.htm July 25, 2006). America’s provision of weapons, munitions, and fuel, to the jos is not indicative of its power to bribe the jos to do what it wants because the only consequence of its helping the jos was being reviled around the world for assisting in the slaughter of innocent people.

The jos extracts whatever it wants from its american serfs. America is just a vast warehouse from which the jews take what they want under the pretense of using the material to promote american interests. As long as the jews say that what they are doing is promoting american interests, americans are gullible enough to allow them to do whatever they like - even if it means destroying american interests. Dumb americans believe whatever they’re told by their jewish masters.

The jews’ barbaric slaughter of lebanese civilians confirms what has become increasingly clear over the last decade and a half: that presidents of the united states of america are politically incapable of curbing global Jewish power. Bush can confront russia or europe or china but he cannot impose his will against jewish world domination. Even worse is that his confrontations with russia, europe, and china are usually at the behest of the jewish lobby seeking to promote the interests of the global jewish empire.

The role of america’s wasp politicians is to go around the world sweeping up the mess created by their jewish masters. They did their best to impose on the united nations’ security council the jews’ chosen ‘peace plan’ for lebanon. "Rice will first explore ways with Israel's leadership to end the crisis and begin to shape a new order in Lebanon. She will return next Sunday to try to implement a cease-fire. From Jerusalem, Rice will go on to Rome to meet senior delegates from the United Nations and Arab states. They will discuss formulating a political arrangement and a plan to rehabilitate Lebanon. From Rome she will travel to an Asian conference in Malaysia, from where she will return to Israel." (Aluf Benn, Shmuel Rosner and Shlomo Shamir ‘Senior officials believe U.S. will give Israel a week to complete military offensive in Lebanon’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741445.html July 23, 2006). In other words, rice went to the jos to pick up her orders, then told america’s allies what the jews’ plan was, and finally returned to the jos to tell the jews that everyone would now support their plans.

Flashes of realism but no Real Illumination.
There are times when jewish control over american politics is so blatant that even politically kosher commentators find it difficult resisting the temptation of telling it like it is. But invariably sooner or later jewish propaganda kicks in and the commentators revert back to form. On one occasion, robert fisk blurted out that not merely america but all western governments are following the jews’ orders. "And now the US and UK -following Israeli policy to the letter -are allowing Israel to destroy Lebanon and call it peace." (Robert Fisk ‘Bush and Blair: "Keep It Up!" http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07292006.html July 29/30 2006). However, he does not believe america is a colonial asset of the global jewish empire, "It (America) is encouraging Israel to continue its destruction of the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza and the West Bank." (Robert Fisk ‘Bush and Blair: "Keep It Up!" http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07292006.html July 29/30 2006).

Juan cole assumes that america is the hyper power and the jos is its satellite. Furthermore, he believes america’s strategic interests overlap with the jos’s regional interests. "The Bush administration's perceived economic and geopolitical interests thus overlap strongly with Israel's perceived security interests, with both benefiting from an Israeli destruction of Hizbullah. It is not impossible that the US Pentagon urged the Israelis on in this endeavor. They certainly knew about and approved of the plan." (Juan Cole ‘War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 23, 2006).

Cole is another advocate of the green light hypothesis. However what is of interest here is that he promotes another fantasy – that america and the jos have overlapping or identical interests. In order to make this fantasy seem plausible cole has to rewrite history. He argues the reason america is anti-iranian is because iran refuses to allow america’s massive multi-national oil companies to invest, and make huge profits, in iran. "For the Bush administration, Iran and Hizbullah are not existential threats. They are proximate threats. Iran is hostile to US corporate investment in the oil-rich Gulf, and so is a big obstacle to American profit-making in the region." (Juan Cole ‘War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 23, 2006).

This is such a gross distortion of the truth it’s almost a lie. Over the last decade or so, iran would have positively welcomed american energy companies investing in, and using their advanced technology, to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. It was the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby, and the jewish neocons in the clinton administration who, in 1995, forced the president into passing an executive order banning american energy companies from investing in iran. In other words, american jews determined america’s policies towards iran, not american wasps eager to promote an american empire nor america’s massive multinational energy companies. At the time, even dick cheney protested about clinton’s ban on investments in Iran. "Go back to March 1996. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which was eagerly seeking to win energy business in Iran. The Clinton Administration had imposed sanctions on Iran a year earlier. "I think," said Cheney, "we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to . . . get everybody else to live the way we would like." Two years later, in a speech at the Cato Institute, Cheney was even more scathing toward American sanctions on Iran. He said that in 1997 America's partners in the Middle East had refused to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory in anticipation of taking "military action against Iraq in order to get [it] to honor the U.N. resolutions." And why were our friends being so recalcitrant? In part, Cheney explained, because the United States "had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise and that they should not do . . . The nation that's isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area."" (Ken Silverstein ‘Dick Cheney, Dove’ http://harpers.org/sb-cheney-3020932092.html May 17, 2006); "Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President Clinton as "counterproductive." He said it had split America from its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." (Ira Stoll ‘‘Israel Lobby' Caused War i n Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says’ http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=40629 September 29, 2006). Cole knows this sequence of events so why does he refuse to acknowledge that the jewish lobby has been preventing america from promoting its strategic interests?

How is Bush boosting American Interests by slaughtering Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians in the Middle East and Alienating Global Opinion?
If america was promoting its own geostrategic interests in the middle east, it would be protecting arab countries which provide it with oil and it would be opposing countries which undermined this relationship. And yet since 1948 america’s support for the jos has undermined its relationship with virtually all of the oil producing countries in the middle east. American support for the jos’s utter barbarism in lebanon has dramatically undermined moslem people’s willingness to tolerate vile dictatorial regimes which survive only because of american support. "The Arab street is cheering for Hezbollah, often across the Sunni-Shi'ite divide, while the governments of states such as Egypt hide under the bed. The goal of Islamic fourth generation forces is the destruction of most, if not all, Arab state governments, so Hezbollah is winning strategically as well. One can almost watch the legitimacy drain away from the region's decrepit states, with incalculable consequences for American interests. Not that Washington is doing anything to protect those interests. On the contrary, it has rushed more bombs and aviation fuel to Israel, lest there be any unwelcome letup in the destruction of Lebanon. Perhaps the neocons have convinced President Bush that Israeli olive oil can substitute for Arab petroleum as fuel for America's SUVs." (William S. Lind ‘Welcome to My Parlor’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=9435 July 29, 2006).

The jos is supposedly promoting america’s economic interests in the middle east but how is this possible when its military objective is to destroy the economic activities of countries opposed to its racism and military expansionism? The jews do not aim merely to defeat an enemy militarily on the battlefield. They try to destroy their enemies’ economic infrastructure in order to prevent them from financing the military means to defend themselves from the global jewish empire. Over the last few years the jews have deliberately devastated palestinians’ economic capacity. And, the main objectives of the jews’ aerial onslaught against lebanon was to slaughter civilians and destroy the country’s economic infrastructure. "The Middle East is boiling over yet again. Israel is resorting to the one strategy it has perfected since the day it was created, murdering civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring "militants" and uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc. Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering. Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred Guernicas." (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel's Terrorism’ http://dissidentvoice.org/July06/Ash18.htm July 18, 2006); "One hope the Israeli hawks appear to entertain is that they can permanently depopulate strips Lebanon south of the Litani river. Since most Shiites vote Hizbullah and offer political support and cover to it, fewer people means fewer assets for the party-militia. This project would require the total destruction of large numbers of villages and the permanent displacement of their inhabitants north to Beirut. That is why the massacre at Qana occurred. The Israelis had bombed Qana 80 times. They were destroying all of its buildings. Therefore, of course, they destroyed the building where dozens of children and families were hiding. This tactic is both collective punishment and ethnic cleansing all at once. It is not only a matter, as the Israelis claim, of hitting Hizbullah rocket launchers. They are destroying all of the buildings." (Juan Cole ‘What is Hizbullah?’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 31, 2006). Anyone interested in appreciating the scale of the jews’ attacks on lebanon’s economy rather than hezbollah should read the list provided by brian whitaker in his article ‘Battered Lebanon Counts the Cost of Israeli Onslaught’ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0721-01.htm July 21, 2006.

The american, and british, governments supported the jos’s attack on lebanon even though this threatened to jeopardize their military forces occupying iraq and afghanistan. What sense did it make for america and britain to expose their military forces by supporting the jews’ gross war criminality against lebanese people? "(Grand Ayotalloah) Sistani has issued a warning to the United States. He wants Bush to intervene to arrange a ceasefire, i.e. the cessation of israeli air raids on Lebanon in general. What could he do if he were ignored? Sistani could call massive anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations. Given Iraq's profound political instability, this development could be extremely dangerous. US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere are planning offensives against Shiite paramilitary groups, so tensions are likely to rise in the Shiite areas anyway. But big demonstrations could easily boil over into actual attacks on US and British troops. Both depend heavily on fuel that is transported through the Shiite south. Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation. The US is already not winning against a Sunni Arab insurgency, backed by around 5 million Iraqis. If 16 million Shiites turned on the US because of its wholehearted support for Israel's actions in Lebanon, the US military mission in Iraq could quickly become completely and urgently untenable. In this case, the British troops in particular would be lucky to escape the country with their lives." (Juan Cole ‘Sistani Threatens US over Israeli War on Lebanon’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_07_01_juanricole_archive.html July 31, 2006). The longer the war persisted, the greater the threat that was posed to america’s and britain’s military forces.

The jews’ slaughter of civilians in lebanon was supposed to destroy terrorists (i.e. decent people who object to jews bombing their homes and economic infrastructure and stealing their land and water) but all it did was boost the numbers of those outraged by such appalling acts of barbarism. "In giving unconditional support to the invaders, Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has to answer this question: how does it further American interests? The answer is, it doesn't. Quite the contrary: it strengthens the deadliest of our enemies, the terrorist network associated with Osama bin Laden, and threatens to recruit Hezbollah – the "A-team" of Middle Eastern paramilitary factions – into a worldwide Islamic insurgency directed primarily against the United States." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9430 July 28, 2006).

America’s strategic interests are firstly, to preserve peace and stability around the world so that its multinational corporations can exploit the world’s resources and, secondly, to encourage a love of american culture that global consumers will want to buy american goods and services. But it has become impossible to understand how america benefits from supporting a hysterical, megalomaniacal, pathologically violent, racist state which continually wages war against its neighbours and is currently starving palestinians to death; turning iraq into a cesspit of civil war; allowing afghanistan to degenerate into a narco-state which it had never been under the taliban; undermining pakistan’s national interests to such an extent it has pushed musharraf into an accommodation with the taliban; and, finally, allowing the jos to obliterate large parts of lebanon? These are not merely pro-jos policies they are jews-only policies since only the jews have derived any benefit from them. The jews’ attack on lebanon had no political, moral, or economic, benefit for america. William s. lind correctly concludes. "In no previous Israeli-Arab war has the United States revealed itself so nakedly as a de facto political satellite of Israel." (William S. Lind ‘Welcome to My Parlor’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=9435 July 29, 2006).